{"id":820,"date":"2019-03-06T16:33:11","date_gmt":"2019-03-06T16:33:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wsm.prolerat.org\/?page_id=820"},"modified":"2019-10-20T13:15:37","modified_gmt":"2019-10-20T12:15:37","slug":"destroying-the-worlds-forests","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/destroying-the-worlds-forests\/","title":{"rendered":"Destroying the world’s forests"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

You can’t assume that because something is forbidden, it isn’t going to happen.<\/em>(1)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These were the words of President Candoso of Brasil after the \nannouncement of record high levels of deforestation in the Amazon, up \n34% since 1991. The history of international attempts to prevent the \ndestruction of forests supports these words.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Deforestation rates<\/strong>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The world’s forests are important for many reasons\u2014from \nregulating climate to providing a habitat for the majority of species on\n earth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There are two types of forest\u2014temperate and tropical. Most forest \ndestruction now takes place in the tropics with the total area of \ntemperate forest now stable. However, there is rapid and continuing loss\n of forest quality in temperate regions. For example, a phenomenon known\n as Waldsterben, or forest death<\/em>\u2014has claimed more than 70,000 \nsquare kilometres of forests in 15 European countries. Acid rain, which \nis one of the causes, has also been devastating in part of America.(5)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yet the global rate of tropical forest destruction is increasing. A \nreport from the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation \n(F.A.O.) found the rate of deforestation to have increased in the 1980s.\n Between 1981 and 1990, the FAO (conservatively) estimated that \ndeforestation in the tropics was, on average, 16.9 million hectares \nannually\u20140.9% lost per year.(3) Most of the losses were in Africa, Asia \nand Latin America. A more recent estimate in 1990 by the World Resources\n Institute estimated that the rate might be 20.4 million hectares per \nyear. In 1978, the World Bank estimated that if tropical deforestation \ncontinued at a rate of 15 to 20 million hectares per year, there would \nbe no tropical forests remaining by some time between the years 2040 and\n 2060.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Only a very small proportion of the world’s tropical forests are \nmanaged sustainably, so as to ensure that trees are not felled at a rate\n exceeding the capacity of the forest to grow back. (The best definition\n of sustainability is, of course, a matter for further discussion.) In a\n study by Poore et al (1989), it was found that less than 1 million out \nof an estimated total area of 828 million hectares of productive \ntropical forest were demonstrably under sustained-yield management.(25)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Causes <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is clear from the very fact that deforestation has taken place\n on such a huge scale that ecological sustainability has not been given \npriority. Instead, as is recognised in the literature of the Tropical \nForestry Action Plan (T.F.A.P.), “commercial exploitation” and \n“Large-scale development projects in agriculture and other sectors, \nincluding projects funded by international development agencies”(6) have\n been allowed to cause deforestation. The goal of profitability \noverrides that of sustainability. The governments of developing nations \ndesperately need revenue and will usually accept new investment from \nindustries which cause deforestation.(7).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a case during the 1990s that outraged environmental lobbyists, the\n government of Surinam sold logging concessions to several huge \ncompanies, which would allow 12 million acres (40% of the country) to be\n logged. The companies’ promised \u00a3320 million investment in saw mills \nand jobs. Along with \u00a338 million a year in tax royalties, this offer has\n proved to be irresistible for the Surinam government.(8)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some commentators(25), (26) have argued that improved policies for \nrenting out forested land could reduce deforestation. They suggest \npolicies such as increasing the length of leases of land and government \nenforcement of the levies to which they are often technically entitled \nbut fail to collect. However, the root cause of the problem is the \ndependence of these governments, who lack the resources to implement \nthese policies on the logging companies, as illustrated by the Surinam \nexample. Several governments require loggers to replant the areas they \ndeforest but such replanting is rarely carried out. For example, the \nBrazilian government have been unable to enforce the limited regulations\n that have been placed on logging in the Amazon. Indeed governments’ \noften lack the capability to enforce their ownership of the land at all.\n This results in what Panayotou and Ashton describe as “quasi-open \naccess” which results in encroachment, poaching and squatting on the \nland.(26)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Attempted Solutions:International Agreements <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

So far, every country has been far more busy trying to secure its\n rights to utilize forest resources rather than trying to protect \nforests from over-utilization and exploitation,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

said Lene Witte, Secretary General of WWF-Denmark.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Neither the rich nor the poor countries will commit themselves to action.(9)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Rio Summit in 1992 could not agree upon any set targets for \ntackling the problem. Developing countries fought off pressure for any \nclear commitment to start negotiations on forestry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The outlook for a coordinated international effort to limit deforestation, then, seems particularly bleak.(10)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The T.F.A.P. and the International Tropical Timber Organisation \n(I.T.T.O.), both set up in the 1980s, ostensibly to curb deforestation, \nhave not yet shown signs of success in managing forests sustainably(11)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tropical Forestry Action Plan <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Introduced in 1987, the T.F.A.P. aimed to raise US$8 billion for \ntropical forest conservation between 1987\u201391. Under the plan, involving \n61 participating countries, $1.6 billion would be invested each year in \nforestry and related agricultural projects. But only 10% of this \nproposed T.F.A.P. budget was allocated for the protection of forest \necosystems.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to a United Nations Development Plan report, of the 42 \ncountries which have drawn up national T.F.A.P. plans, none intended to \nengage in ecosystem restoration. The plan was more concerned with \nsetting up commercial plantations, for which the T.F.A.P. gave loans. \nFor example, the T.F.A.P. for Latin America and the Caribbean aims to \ninvest $2\u2014$2.8 billion per year for the next decade, in the industrial \ndevelopment of the region’s forests.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In South East Asia, Jaoko Powry, a leading Finnish pulp and paper \nfirm, was even given the task of drawing up the T.F.A.P. ‘master plans’ \nfor Sri Lanka, Nepal and possibly Thailand. Hardly surprising then that \nsuch national ‘master plans’ are shown by the World Rainforest Movement \nto have speeded up the rate of deforestation.(12)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

International Tropical Timber Organisation. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The I.T.T.O. stated as its goal that all internationally traded \ntimber should come from sustainable sources by the year 2000. But, as Friends of the Earth<\/em> argue:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

the I.T.T.O. has become an alibi for inaction at the international \nlevel and a diversion from effective change at the national level. The \nI.T.T.O. has neither achieved an effective reform of the timber trade \nnor provided any mechanism to achieve such reform. It has also failed to\n fulfill its official mandate.(13)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I.T.T.O. has no powers of enforcement or sanction. Policy decisions \ntend to be couched in terms of an ‘invitation’ to members to act which \nare then largely forgotten.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One such ‘invitation’ was Target 2000<\/em>, adopted in May 1990 \nby all I.T.T.O. member governments, albeit against the wishes of many \nconsuming nations. especially the USA It was formally recognised in May \n1991 and stated that member governments would<\/p>\n\n\n\n

progress towards achieving sustainable management of tropical \nforests, and trade in tropical timber from sustainably managed resources\n by the year 2000.(14)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

not a single government has yet indicated its intent to develop \nnational guidelines, and only 7 out of the 47 members actually did \nreport to the following meeting. Although a few more reported the \nfollowing year, these mostly consisted of the consumer nations.(15)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Article One of the International Tropical Timber Agreement has two contradictory aims. On the one hand,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To promote the expansion and diversification of international trade in tropical timber.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the other, to encourage the development of national policies aimed at sustainable \nutilisation and conservation of tropical forests and their genetic \nresources, and at maintaining the ecological balance in the regions \nconcerned.(16)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of course the goal of ‘sustainability’ is ambiguous and for the \ntimber industry it simply means “sustaining the yield of commercial \ntimber of a given (generally short) period of time.”(17) Still, \n‘sustainability,’ even such a weak goal which fails to acknowledge the \nneed to conserve biological diversity, is nowhere near being achieved. \nReforestation rates lag far behind deforestation rates, being 25% in \nAsia and below 3.75% in Africa.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The World Bank Forest Strategy <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A year 2000 review by the World Bank of it’s own Forest Strategy<\/em> admitted failure in stemming the problem of deforestation:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Forest-rich countries, the focus of the strategy, have sought to \nexploit their forests for legitimate development purposes, as well as \nfor the benefit of powerful interest groups. As a result, the two \ncentral objectives of the strategy\u2014slowing down rates of deforestation \nand increasing forest cover- have not been achieved.(27)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The World Bank review concludes that “there was insufficient \nforesight regarding the powerful forces of globalisation and economic \nliberalisation that are affecting forest outcomes.” It acknowledges that\n insufficient financing was provided: “Although Forest sector lending \nhas increased by 78 percent, it remains less than 2 percent of overall \nBank lending” (XX) (Overall bank lending is $3.51 billion.) Barbier et \nal write that “there is evidence that producer countries will require \nadditional financing of around US$ 0.3 to 1.5 billion annually to \nimplement sustainable management plans for their tropical forests.”(28)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Market-based solutions? <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Defenders of free market capitalism claim that the strength of \nthe market is that the price system can reflect the cost of a resource \nsuch as timber. It might be thought, therefore, that the price of \ntropical timber would rise as the resource becomes more scarce. While \nthere has been a rise in tropical timber prices, this is more a result \nof increased global demand (caused by factors such as population growth \nand the construction needs of the South) than the ongoing depletion of \nthe resource base. The textbook theory of increasing resource scarcity \nbeing reflected in prices is not so evident. For example, it was pointed\n out in a study by Granger (1987) that Latin America could log for \ntwenty years before the supply constraints would be felt. This will only\n occur when timber become less accessible and loggers start to have to \npenetrate more difficult terrain. Panayotou and Ashton argue that, even \nif price rises do result, wood will remain cheap relative to it’s \nsubstitutes (concrete, plastic, bricks, steel etc) due to it being less \nenergy-intensive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some environmental commentators hope that the problem of tropical \ndeforestation might be alleviated through a shift of emphasis in the \ntimber exporting nations of the South. Barbier et al suggest that \ndeveloping nations, for whom timber exports are an integral part of the \neconomy, should focus on producing ‘higher value’ timber products. \nHigher value timber products are those that involve some refinement and \nspecial usage of the raw timber materials. Were the higher value route \nmore profitable, it would no doubt have been adopted more widely. It \nwould seem that the kind of barriers mentioned above exist for this \nroute, namely the short-term incentive to continue to focus upon the \nexport of raw timber. In any case, it is would only, at best, alleviate \nthe problem of rapid deforestation rates and the need to adopt \nsustainable practices would still remain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Rainforest ‘Harvest’ <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Environmental groups such as the Worldwatch Institute argue that \ntrade in renewable forest products can replace the logging industry \naltogether. As The Ecologist<\/em> explains,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

the theory is that if it can be shown that forests are of more value \nwhen they are standing than when they are felled, then they are more \nlikely to be preserved.(18)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As is pointed out by Scientific American<\/em>(20) careful extraction of such products on a renewable basis is less profitable than more intensive production. See (Over-Fishing)<\/a> for similar examples of ‘economies of scale.’<\/p>\n\n\n\n

when a forest product such as latex becomes commercially important it\n is inevitably introduced into higher-yielding plantations, in 1991 \nabout 60% of Brazil’s natural rubber came from plantations. As a result \nthe price plummets, and small-scale extraction ceases to be profitable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A report in Nature<\/em> has indeed shown the value of renewable \nproducts, such as nuts, fruits, rubber and plant species that can be \nused for medicinal purposes to be high. The report estimates that timber\n constitutes less than 10% of the value of renewable resources of \ntropical rainforests. It is also pointed out that the value of \nnon-timber products could exceed that of timber, although this can only \nbe the case over a long period of time. The key problem for the \nrenewable route under capitalism is that it seeks to compromise the \nmotives of short term profitability for the global timber industry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The prospect of alternative sources of profit is of little interest \nto those responsible for deforestation. The value of the global timber \ntrade is currently nearly US$7 billion. It is beyond dispute that \nloggers have only short term motives\u2014a recent World Bank study estimated\n that of 33 countries which currently export tropical timber, all but 10\n will be logged out by year 2000. Yet loggers would otherwise struggle \nto make a living and are more than willing to take advantage of \ngovernments’ unwillingness or inability to enforce any environmental \nregulations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Timber exporters set up a Forests Forever<\/em> campaign, arguing that “judicious felling” of trees is possible. Yet, as The Ecologist<\/em> argues,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

no one has any idea if tropical rainforests can be logged sustainably\n or not; and logging is not and will never be carried out “judiciously” \nand “carefully” in countries where controls are ignored and corruption \nstarts at the top. For example, British mahogany importers are hiding \nbehind Brazilian certificates attesting that their wood is not being \ntaken from conservation zones or Indian reserves. These are falsified \ncertificates: most of the imported timber now comes from Indian \nareas.(21)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Evidence of this was further provided by a recent ‘Dispatches’ \ndocumentary which proved that loggers are felling mahogany trees in \nAmazonian Indian reserves and selling them to exporters. Some of these \nexporters are members of the trade association AMEX who signed an \nagreement not to buy mahogany from Indian reserves.(22) This is just one\n example of the failure of the World Bank and UN policy of establishing \nprotective areas, or Forest Zones. These zones only represent a small \nproportion of the total forest and effectively sacrifice the remaining \nparts of forests to the needs of capitalists investing in the region.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Timber Industry to Subsidise Sustainable Logging? <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another hope of environmental pressure groups such as The Nature Foundation<\/em>\n is that the price of timber be raised so as to subsidise sustainable \nlogging. Rodolfo Rendon, their president has criticised the I.T.T.O. for\n failing to regulate world timber prices. Producer countries, he points \nout issued a joint statement in Indonesia in May 1990, seeking \nadjustments in world timber prices “so that costs of forest management \nand reforestation can be considered.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Consumer nations showed no interest in the request at a meeting in \nJapan last November. This is unsurprising considering that such \nsubsidies would raise the cost of timber for importers. For example, a \nstudy by the World Wide Fund for Nature (W.W.F.) shows that Latin \nAmerica would need an average of $7 billion annually for the next 15 \nyears to guarantee forest conservation and keep up the current timber \nsupply. 98 percent of timber exports, mostly from third world countries,\n do not cover the cost of forest restoration and conservation.(23) We \nhave here another example of competition among producers preventing such\n regulations being introduced.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even if it were realistic for consumer nations to pay more than the \nmarket price, it is not clear that this would help achieve the goal of \nsustainable forestry:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

higher prices for timber translate into more intensive cutting and \nmake extraction from more remote areas financially attractive.(24)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Trade restrictions? <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Similar problems would beset any attempt to enforce sustainable \nforestry through trade restrictions. Countries might decide on a policy \nof adding a surcharge for the importing of tropical timber that is \nproduced unsustainably, such as was attempted by the Netherlands in the \nearly 1990s. One problem faced by this legislation is the World Trade \nOrganisation (W.T.O.) regime which restricts nations in the kind of \ncharges they may impose on imports. In any case, unilateral action by an\n individual state such as this faces the ‘free rider’ problem, in which \nall other states benefit from the actions of others, even when they opt \nout of such policies themselves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For news of lack of progress five years later, see Earth Summit II Ends In Failure<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n