Registered user login:

The price of a living forest

Mark Lynas

Published 22 November 2007

The blunt economic truth is clear: deforestation can never be stopped as long as trees are worth more dead than alive

The two environmentalists never stood a chance. As they drove into the small Honduran town of Guarizama on 20 December last year, armed men forced Heraldo Zúñiga and Roger Iván Cartagena to the side of the road, dragged them from their car, stood them against a wall next to the municipal building in full view of passers-by, and shot them. Although at least 40 shots were fired, Zúñiga survived long enough to denounce those who had hired the assassins - the timber barons who are making a fortune by razing the region's pine forests and exporting wood to the United States.

Such is the price of taking on the power of the illegal timber trade. But almost as shocking as the murders of those who try to protect the forests in countries such as Honduras is that neither the US nor the EU has any enforceable means of stopping illegal timber imports.

Now, after a long campaign, the Environmental Investigation Agency is supporting a rare bipartisan legislative effort in the US Congress to choke off domestic demand for imported illegal wood products. Promoted by Republicans and Democrats alike, as well as by an unusual coalition of environmental and industry groups, the Legal Timber Protection Act would make it a crime to import or sell illegally sourced timber. The EU is also on the way to similar legislation.

Despite these positive moves, however, the blunt economic truth is clear: deforestation can never be stopped as long as trees are worth more dead than alive. As Andrew Mitchell, director of the Oxford-based Global Canopy Programme, points out, the only thing that can safeguard the survival of tropical forests in the long term is a market value. This means generating hard-currency income flows to countries and communities that host forests, in recognition of the "ecological services" that these intact woodlands provide to the rest of humanity.

Mitchell is co-sponsor of the Forests Now Declaration - an attempt to persuade governments meeting at the UN climate negotiations in Bali next month to bring forests into the world's emerging carbon markets and thereby put a price on their protection. Deforestation accounts for a fifth of global greenhouse-gas emissions - more than the entire transport sector, including international aviation - and yet emissions avoided by reducing deforestation are not eligible for carbon credits. Indeed, because its forests are being so rapidly cleared and burned down (in part to produce supposedly climate-friendly palm oil for biofuels), Indonesia is the world's third-largest carbon emitter after China and the United States. With billions now circulating in carbon markets around the world, Indonesia can potentially be paid to keep its forests standing rather than chop them down. Major forest countries such as the Democratic Republic of Congo and Papua New Guinea have already lent the proposal their support.

Climate change presents humanity with a non-negotiable requirement to live within the planet's ecological limits, but these limits also include the need to protect finite resources such as the world's remaining forests. Bali presents governments with an ideal opportunity to address both issues at the same time - and to ensure that other environmental problems are not aggravated in our rush to tackle climate change.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

9 comments from readers

writeon
22 November 2007 at 14:52

As I understand it the world's remaining forests are being cut down at a tremendous rate, and the process it actually accelerating as we speak. It would appear that, unless drastic action is taken, in a few decades they will more or less be gone. This isn't scaremongering, it's what's happening.

Are we really going to stop and even reverse the course we are on? It is, after all, akin to cutting out the lungs of the planet. Can anyone think of an apt historical parallel where we actually stopped market mechanisms from totally destroying a resource? To be blunt doesn't the market always decide in the end? And to be even blunter, isn't this the real problem? Isn't capitalism unbound a monster that's going to destroy and devour everything in its path? In a way I think we've been lulled into passivity and a false sense of security, by comfort and wealth. We seem to have accepted that Capitalism is a benevolent dictatorship that provides for all, so why challange it? I think in the coming age of scarcity, we are in line for a rather rude awakening from our decades long slumber!

tree hugger
24 November 2007 at 22:18

RE: writeon .... "Forests will more or less disappear" .... yeah right !??!! . . . Get real! You'd be more effective as an environmentalist if you get your head out of the sand and say something believable.

writeon
25 November 2007 at 11:06

Treehugger, I didn't mean all the trees over the entire world would be felled. Most of these trees have little or no commercial value. However, I assumed we were talking about the commercially valuable timber in Brazil, Africa and Asia. The rates of deforestation in Brazil and Asia are alarming and increasing. If one projects these rates forward a few decades the result is pretty clear, most of these forests will be more or less gone. I didn't realize this was a particularly controversial statement. I'm not sure why you think this is so unbelievable a scenario. Of course it doesn't need to happen, we could stop cutting down so many trees, we could plant more trees and actually reverse the process of deforestation, I'm just sceptical that we'll actually do this in time and reverse the environmental effects of deforestation.

davef
26 November 2007 at 16:10

I think writeon is right .. on. Why should capitalism and 'the market' be the answer to environmental problems. Generally it is the cause of them and no amount of greenwash can disguise the fact. Urgent state action backed by overwhelming force is required by all governments concerened. Pussyfooting around putting value on live trees doesn't really address the urgency of the problem and governments are usually half-hearted and cowardly about environmental matters and criminal capitalists laugh as they ignore or currupt any attempt at legislation. Give illegal loggers no doubt what will happen to them if they are caught killing trees or people.

Carl Jones
26 November 2007 at 18:59

Mr Lynas; it takes a lot of wood to decoratea cruise liner.lol

Once again Mr Lynas misses the point. The above replies are good. But the likes of Mr Lynas and his green cohorts should start by advocating a 6 month public protest. Convince the public to stop buying all products from the developing world. I`m sure we can do without our throw-away tee-shirts and instead of throwing away your kettle, get it fixed!

If sales dropped by just 10% in 6 months, the elite would actually get off their fat back-sides and do something. The sad fact is, Mr Lynas is actually assisting in the destruction of the planet by constantly missing the target.

tonyrobin
29 November 2007 at 13:43

In reply to Carl Jones Nov 26, I do not think that M Lynas will sink so low as to answer your comment, but I will on his behalf.

True, M Lynas travels about quite a bit, otherwise he would never be able to substantiate his findings. He doesnt sit on his backside and rabble a mass of untruths about the climate. All of his findings are based on facts and figures over many decades.

gnuneo
08 December 2007 at 15:57

to put this in a wider perspective, it is the economic paradigm that regards the 'natural world' as a free resource that is the problem.

by putting an effective cost to the destruction of these natural resources (as mark says), would be to balance the sheet somewhat.

no longer can companies pollute our rivers and land without retribution, no longer can drivers of the internal combustion engine smugly ignore the damage it does to everybody else's health, no longer can such costs be regarded as 'externalised'.

many corporations have moved their production from the western world because we as societies woke up to the costs of their processes, and rather than pay for what they do they moved to countries with lower environmental and labour standards - well, its now time and past that those self same environmental restrictions were made global, and with well funded independent monitoring as well.

and if we have any sense whatsoever, the same labour laws will also be extended, let us force china to allow unionisation (as it rejects the capitalist partnership (cooperative) model, this being apparently one emancipation of the people too far), if we are indeed heading towards a 'one world govt', let us insure as far as possible it is in the interests of the People and Planet, not a cabal of corporatists and insane religious nutters.

Pat T
24 January 2008 at 02:58

I used to own stock in Plum Creek Timber and, assuming that the company owns the real estate, this notion of "trees being worth more dead than alive" is a false dichotomy - timber is, you see, a renewable resource. They plant new trees to replace the old ones, and since timber quality improves over time and margins are higher for higher quality timber, there is every incentive to maintain the forest, assuming of course private ownership of the forest.

Most of the deforestation worldwide actually comes in situations where the government owns the forest land and needs money, so it allows companies in to extract resources at a cheap rate.

This is another example of where mistrust of markets comes from situations where it really isn't a market to begin with and from misunderstanding of how markets work.

Pat T
24 January 2008 at 02:59

You know, Adam Smith was Scottish - he was your boy.

You really should familiarize yourselves with his works.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

You may enter up to 2000 characters (about 300-350 words)

Characters left:

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

About the writer

Mark Lynas

Mark Lynas is a climate change writer and activist, author of the acclaimed book 'High Tide' and fortnightly columnist for the New Statesman. He was selected by National Geographic as an 'Emerging Explorer' for 2006, and blogs on www.marklynas.org

Read More

Vote!

Should the third runway at Heathrow go ahead?