***********************************************
FOREST CONSERVATION NEWS TODAY
Brazilian Amazon Threatened by Myth of "Sustainable Forestry"
***********************************************
Forest Networking a Project of Forests.org, Inc.
 
 http://forests.org/ -- Forest Conservation Portal
  http://www.EnvironmentalSustainability.info/ -- Eco-Portal
   http://www.ClimateArk.org/ -- Climate Change Portal
    http://www.WaterConserve.info/ -- Water Conservation Portal
 
October 1, 2004
OVERVIEW & COMMENTARY by Glen Barry, Ph.D., Forests.org

The vicious myth of sustainable old-growth forestry is being perpetuated
by the WWFs and World Banks of the world.  They are the unnamed forces
behind the following account of efforts to privatize the Brazilian Amazon.
The Brazilian Amazon's very survival as a life-generating force is
threatened by the fallacy that primary rainforest wilderness can and
should be "sustainably" logged.  

Inconveniently for those making the case to log the world's last large
wilderness areas is that fact that there is NO scientific evidence to
support the idea that old-growth forests can be ecologically sustainably
harvested.  None whatsoever.  In fact, what these groups are claiming is
that since all these forests are going to be logged, cleared, and burned
anyway, that the best we can hope to do is make them into tree farms.  And
that is what they will become.  

First time logging of old-growth irreparably diminishes its ecological
integrity; skewing species assemblages, and making for depauperate, sick
and humanized forest landscapes.  Follow on harvests further homogenize
previously ancient natural forests into plantations.  Timber is sustained.
Forest ecosystems are not.  Indigenous peoples' cultures and their
habitats are smashed in the name of feel good conservation blarney.  

Perhaps we could cut a few panels from the Mona Lisa to sell as a
fund-raiser for its maintenance?  The point is that beauty, truth and
ecological values lie in the whole, large and intact forest, not in
individual trees.  

Those that follow the WWF/World Bank's coalition of the ecologically
challenged are engaged in crimes against humanity and the Earth. 
Forests.org demands an internal review of the World Bank/WWF coalition's
efforts to promote industrial logging in the World's last old-growth
forests, to include a full review of the ecological literature.  Community
based eco-forestry and protection is the only viable option to maintain
large forests required for global and local ecological sustainability. 
Don't support the coalition's lies.

g.b.

*******************************
 
RELAYED TEXT STARTS HERE:
 
Title:  Sawing the wood for the trees
Source:  Copyright 2003, Guardian
Date:  October 1, 2004
Byline:  Clare Davidson

A Brazilian plan to protect the Amazon through sustainable logging sounds
like a great idea, but opponents claim it amounts to privatisation of the
rainforest, writes Clare Davidson


In one decade an area of forest twice the size of Portugal has been
destroyed in the Amazon, the planet's most bio-diverse forest, so a
Brazilian plan to better protect the area through sustainable forestry,
certainly sounds positive.

But the plan - which is due to go to Brazilian Congress in two weeks - is
proving highly controversial. 

The proposed law, first discussed in 2002 under Brazil's rightwing former
president, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, would grant access to public land
for sustainable use, initially for 30 years. 

Licences would be allocated under a system of competitive bids and would
be open only to Brazilian firms. Licence-holders would pay an annual fee
calculated on what they extract, such as wood or resins, from their plot.

But information on how much money the government will make from the
licences is hard to come by.

The topic gained particular notoriety after Brazil's O Globo newspaper
described it as "a plan to privatise the Amazon", saying the government
wanted to sell land to private enterprises, including non-Brazilians. 

The parliamentary group in defence of Brazil, a nationalist group, has
claimed the law would threaten Brazil's sovereignty.

The government says its intention is the exact opposite. 

Speaking to Guardian Unlimited last month during the second international
Amazonian trade fair in the Amazonian city of Manaus, Malvino Salvador,
forestry and sustainable development agency director for Amazonas state,
said the law should "facilitate conservation of public land and better
protect it by insisting parties fulfil rules and pay for the privilege".

Environmental and social organisations largely favour regulation for
sustainable land use, though they have expressed concerns about the
details. 

However, in response to claims by O Globo that environmental organisations
were violently opposed to the plan, a working group of NGOs and social
groups was obliged to issue a statement clarifying their position, which
stated: "Contrary to press reports, the law is an attempt to guarantee
public control for public land."

That measures are needed to protect the Amazon is unquestionable; today
the area is victim to illegal wood logging, destructive cattle ranching
and soya production and forest burning at increasing rates. But how to
protect the area, home to 20 million people and the generator of 8% of
Brazil's exports, in an economically viable way is no easy feat. 

Even within the environment ministry there are diverging opinions.
Virgilio Vianna, environment and sustainable development secretary for
Amazonas state said: "I favour the concession proposal. It is far better
for [extraction] to be ordered and disciplined than not - but not in its
current form." 

While 70% of the Amazon is public land, potential concession areas - land
that remains outside conservation, local population or research areas - is
far smaller at around 2%. 

In practice, this means a hectare, which typically has 300 adult trees and
10,000 more growing, would allow five to six trees to be chopped down
every thirty years. 

"With good forest management, you shouldn't be able to tell that trees
have been cut," said Tasso Azevedo, director of the environment ministry's
national forestry programme. 

One of the main hurdles to regulation is land ownership. "There has been
no legal framework permitting the use of public land, let alone
encouraging sustainable use forest use," explained Brazil's Friends of the
Earth director, Roberto Smeraldi. This has discouraged serious law-abiding
businesses interested in invested, he added.

And mapping such land remains a challenge. Paulo Barreto, a researcher
with Imazon, which promotes sustainable development in the Amazon,
explained that a high number of land title documents are illegal or false,
and the government lacks ownership proof.  

Another concern is implementation of concessions. Jefferson Peres, senator
for the leftwing Democratic Workers party, said implementation requires
the National Institute of Colonisation and Agrarian Reform (INCRA) and
Brazil's Institute for Environmental and Renewable Natural Resources
(IBAMA) to have "far more resources, trained personnel, and better
coordination". "Implementing the law any time soon would be precipitous,"
he added. 

"There are certainly ways the proposal could be improved," stated Friends
of the Earth's Smeraldi. He cited the lack of guarantees as a problem,
saying financial collateral is needed for concessions. 

He also said the government's choice of flexible payments (based on the
value of what is extracted) does not encourage the most economical use of
land, stimulate good forestry management or technological investment. 

Paulo Prado, of environmental organisation Conservation International
(Brazil), added that the current study has not taken into account how to
include local workforces into such projects.

In response to such criticism, Mr Azevedo said the current situation is
untenable. "This law will provide some security - that alone is a gigantic
change." The politician added: "We are adopting this new model precisely
because land is being destroyed now." But he added that the participation
of NGOs and social groups in debating the law remains "essential". 

The government has examined over 50 cases of forestry concession worldwide
but it is difficult to draw comparisons. Brazil's forests are generally
more diverse and larger than elsewhere and already have significant
communities living there.

Peru, which adopted a law two years ago permitting long-term concessions,
is the best equivalent model, argues Smeraldi, because it encompasses
parts of the Amazon - although the Peruvian law is already being revised
in the light of experience, Smeraldi said.

And if parties don't fulfill the rules? "We are not going to allow just
anybody access to concession rights. If a party breaks the rules they lose
their rights," said Malvino Salvador. Moreover, for the first 10 years
only 20% of the potential land will available for concessions. 

Flying over the Amazon, it is impossible to imagine that a lack of trees,
which reach far further than they eye can see, could ever be a problem.
But Brazil's Atlantic forest only has 7% intact. "We cannot repeat this in
the Amazon," warned Virgílio Vianna.

When the law reaches Congress in the coming weeks it will doubtless
generate a heated debate. As Jose Rabelo of Amazonas' environment
protection institute (IPAAM) made clear: "Doing nothing is not an
option."

Networked by Forests.org, Inc., gbarry@forests.org

-----------------------------
You are subscribed to "Forest Conservation News Today" as:
Star.Mail@t-online.de

- WAIT: rather than unsubscribing, please consider refining your
subscription.  Lists which can be individually selected include 
Forest News, Action Alerts and Earth Meanders.  To change your 
subscription preferences visit: 
http://forests.org/subscribe/update.asp?email=Star.Mail@t-online.de

- To unsubscribe, send a blank email to:
leave-forests-26780M@environmentalsustainability.info
or visit:
http://www.environmentalsustainability.info:81/u?id=26780M&n=T&c=F

- To subscribe, send an email to:
join-forests@environmentalsustainability.info
or visit: http://forests.org/subscribe/