PEFC & Malayan Forests – More Bulls Ploppy!

I try and be a gentle-man. There are though, as my avid readers know, a few things that really get up my nose and I feel I just have to vent my spleen through the media of these blogs!

One thing I really, really hate is spurious information. You know the sort of thing, if you watch the ad’s on T.V. for cosmetics (generally, though not exclusively) that say that most women agree that a particular product is the best, and then at the bottom of the screen it states in very small writing that the figures are, for instance, 87% of 129 women canvassed.

So what? There are 61 million people in the U.K. and very slightly more of them are of the female persuasion as opposed to men or maybe not too sure, so does that really give a certain product the status of ‘preferred by most women’ when so few have been asked for an opinion and even then, not all of them said ‘yes’!

 The PEFC (Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification) very recently endorsed Malaya’s own forest certification process. I will not drag over old ground and bang on about that again – go read the blog! — but what made the steam come out of my ears was the spurious statement in the PEFC press release, and I quote: “Yet tropical forests in the Southern hemisphere offer the most benefits to tackling some of society’s biggest challenges, including climate change, combating deforestation and forest degradation, and maintaining the world’s precious biodiversity.”

 As my American chums would say, “What’s your beef?”. Simple: Malaya is NORTH of the equator, i.e. in the northern hemisphere, 2 degrees 30 minutes north to be precise (according to the U.S. CIA, and no-one doubts what they say!).

 The Malayan Forestry Certification Scheme is a contentious enough issue as it is, without the redoubtable PEFC throwing-in inaccurate, dare I say it, misleading, information to shore-up a shaky press release.

Chocolate? Certainly. Would you like some Rain Forest with that?

 The World’s largest supplier of Cocoa is the Republic of Cote d’Ivoire in West Africa. It is bordered by (among others) the Republic of Ghana, the World’s second greatest producer of cocoa beans. But Ghana’s position in the cocoa business is shaky, and the Country’s leaders are determined not to be knocked off their coveted number two spot, knowing very well that they can never catch up with their neighbours for pole position.

All well and good, but in order to maintain and strengthen their position, Ghana actually needs to plant more cocoa plantations. Although Ghana has signed a European V.P.A. (Voluntary Partnership Agreement) regarding timber extraction, the only way Ghana can increase cocoa plantations is by deforestation, which the U.S. C.I.A. cites as one of the major environmental problems facing the country.

So there is a dichotomy of interests here, as in so many other regions of the Tropics. In order for a country to create wealth and stability for its people it has no alternative but to increase the amount of land available for agriculture/plantations. This has a local, and indeed global, effect on climate control and ‘natural’ disasters, which harm the very people in the country where deforestation is carried out.

But who are we, in ‘The West’, the so-called ‘civilised’ world to stick our noses into Ghana’s business and say no to their plans. Practically all of us enjoy chocolate, in one form or another, and Ghana is very keen to supply as much of it as they possibly can! We all enjoy it when prices drop, and if greater production and a need for foreign dollars makes the product cheaper, then economies of scale of production have to be increased, ergo, increased production, equals larger plantation, equals less forest.

The best we can hope for is that the deforestation of Ghana’s small remaining areas of tropical forest are logged with all due care and attention to the local indigenous peoples and environment, and with an eye to re-planting other areas (a dream too far?). But this is unlikely, because Ghana’s deforestation is already out of control. Of an internationally agreed Annual Allowable Cut (AAC) of one-million cubic metres of timber, the latest figures show that 1.6 million cubic metres are being cut by the ‘formal’ sector, i.e. government approved/licensed loggers, and the ‘informal’ sector (illegal slash and grab chainsaw loggers) are taking a further 1.7 million cubic metres. That’s a whole lot of forest in a country that doesn’t have much left anyway!

So look out for the ethically produced brands of chocolate, stop thinking how good it is that Tesco (or whoever) have cut another 10p. per bar from the price of their own label chocolate (often at the cost of their suplliers!), and spare a thought for the beleagureed people, wildlife, and indeed the very trees themselves of Ghana. I have met several Ghanaians, and they are a warm, friendly, hospitable people. Give them a break.

Malaya Gets Certified!

I was amazed to see from the PEFC press release of the 5^th. of May, 2009 that Malaysia had received PEFC certification/endorsement for it’s Timber Certification Scheme (MTCS).

 At the Illegal Logging Update and Stakeholder Consultation meeting, held in London on the 19^th. & 20^th. of January of this year, the presentation of Dato’ Dr. Freezailah Che Yeom on behalf of the Malaya Forest Council, made it clear that it would be almost impossible to meet the EU FLEGT (Forest Law Enforcement Governance & Trade) criteria and the Malay government were therefore pursuing their own certification programme, the MTCS. He was given polite attendance by the audience, as was the following presentation of Ms. Ivy Wong Abdullah of WWF Malaysia who spoke of what the FLEGT was and was not, and finally Professor Ramy Bhulan of the University of Malaya, who spoke on behalf of the indigenous peoples and their lack of representation in the consultation process, and the ‘rape’ of their tribal homelands, especially on Sarawak. Prof. Ramy Buhlan’s presentation included heart breaking photographic images of areas currently being destructively logged, as well as vast swathes of land that had been stripped bare of their former, lush, tropical forest.

 A question was asked by a member of the audience (me) of both Dr. Freezailah and Ms. Wong as to whether reforestation — and thus sustainability — formed any part of the work that they were doing toward the establishment of  the MTCS, and if not, was this not somewhat short-sighted of the Malay Government and a gross dereliction of duty on the part of WWF.

 Dr. Freezailah appeared disturbed, almost angered, by the question and yet was adamant in his response that there was NO provision for reforestation as a means of  sustainability. Ms. Wong was visibly embarrassed by the question and had to admit that Dr. Freezailah’s answer was true for WWF Malaya as well, adding that they feared being locked-out of the consultation process if they (WWF Malaya) tried to ‘insert’ topics which were outside of the Governments own agenda.

 After the meeting Dr. Freezailah openly snubbed me, while Ms. Wong continued to show acute embarrassment, and many of the audience congratulated me, one attendee even remarking that even the EU had assumed that reforestation/sustainability was automatically, nay, naturally, part of any State sponsored certification scheme, and that they, the EU, would therefore have to take a closer look at the situation, now that they knew such was not the case in Malaya.

 Have the Malayan Forestry Council re-written their certification process to include re-forestation, sustainability, and the rights of indigenous people, or have the venerated PEFC had the wool pulled over their eyes too?