Showing posts with label Deforestation. Show all posts

12 leading U.K. scientists accuse World Growth International and International Trade Strategies Global of having close associations with politically conservative US thinktanks and advancing "biased or distorted arguments" on palm oil plantations and logging


Leading scientists accuse thinktanks of being logging lobbyists

Open letter accuses two 'independent' groups of distorting facts and having close associations with multinational logging corporations 
by John Vidal, environment editor, guardian.co.uk,


  • Twelve leading scientists, including the former head of Kew Gardens and the biodiversity adviser to the president of the World Bank, have written an open letter accusing two international thinktanks of "distortions, misrepresentations, or misinterpretations of fact" in their analysis and writings about rainforests and logging.

The unprecedented attack on the tactics and objectivity of the two groups who claim to be independent is contained in an open letter sent to The Guardian. It accuses the Washington-based World Growth International (WGI) and Melbourne-based International Trade Strategies Global (ITS) of having close associations with politically conservative US thinktanks and advancing "biased or distorted arguments" on palm oil plantations and logging.
The scientists claim that ITS Global is "closely allied with" and "frequently funded by" multinational logging, wood pulp, and palm oil corporations and lobbies for one of the world's largest industrial logging corporations which has has been repeatedly criticised for its environmental and human-rights records.
"WGI frequently lobbies public opinion on the behalf of Sinar Mas holdings, a conglomerate of mostly Indonesian logging, wood-pulp, and oil palm companies," added the scientists.
"These organisations portray themselves as independent thinktanks or NGOs, but are actually lobby groups that are aggressively defending and funded by some of the world's largest logging, oil palm and pulp-plantation corporations. These corporations are playing a major role globally in the rapid destruction of tropical forests," said William Laurance, research professor at James Cook University in Cairns and Prince Bernhard chair of the International Nature Conservation at the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands.
The scientists include Sir Ghillean Prance, former director of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; Thomas Lovejoy, chief biodiversity adviser to the president of the World Bank; Prof Omar R. Masera, director of the bioenergy lab at the National University of Mexico and Nobel laureate on behalf of the Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and others from Oxford, Stanford and Imperial College, London. Together, they accuse the two organisations of promulgating "serious misconceptions" about tropical forestry and reaching conslusions that are "strongly at variance with refereed scientific matrial."
"WGI and ITS have failed adequately to recognise that many forests of high conservation value are being destroyed and fragmented by plantation development —a process that is mostly driven by corporations, not small holders. While routinely accusing several environmental organisations and the IPCC of bias and scientific misrepresentation, WGI and ITS have, in our opinion, advanced a range of biased or distorted arguments themselves," says the letter.
WGI has in the past launched fierce attacks on Greenpeace, whom it has accused of "falsifying data", as well as Rainforest Action and WWF over their analysis of deforestation in Indonesia. Earlier this year WGI attacked the IPCC over "glaciergate", when a mistake was found in the panel's 2007 report about the date glaciers in the Himalayas would melt.Yesterday it accused WWF, the world's largest conservation group, of "deceiving business", saying that "working with WWF ultimately harms business and economic growth".
Environment groups have long been at war with US conservative thinktanks, but this is one of the few times that leading scientists have become involved in the debate.
Alan Oxley, chairman and director of both groups, is a former Australian diplomat and corporate lobbyist for free trade agreements. He is a prominent climate sceptic who set up the now defunct denial website Climatechangeissues.com and runs the Asia-Pacific pages of Tech Central Station – a conservative website funded by ExxonMobil.
Along with other directors of World Growth, he has worked with DCI Group, a leading Republican political lobbying firm that had close ties to the George W Bush administration. DCI specialised in setting up third-party industry groups which lobbied as independent NGOs.
Oxley and both groups were contacted by The Guardian but have so far failed to respond to the allegations by the scientists.

Joe Romm, If you think Lula means what he says about reduction of deforestation of the Amazon, I have a bridge to sell to you

Grist exclusive:

Amazon Burning:  A fiery battle over land in Brazil’s Amazon rainforest


by Brenda Baletti, Grist, January 12, 2010



 [The photo mentioned in the legend below is no longer available on line, even at the site of original publication, perhaps due to legal reasons.]
On the Arapiuns River, barges of illegally taken timber smolder after being set aflame to protest logging in Gleba Nova Olinda, Amazon Rainforest. All photos: Brenda Baletti

While world leaders were meeting in Copenhagen to address the challenge of climate change last month, indigenous and traditional Brazilians in the Amazon region were gathering to defend one the globe’s most important climate-stabilizing resources: the rainforest.

The protesters are battling against the evisceration of their homelands by illegal logging. At the root of the conflict lie two competing conceptions of the rainforest: 1) it can be a place that supports traditional communities and a variety of plant and animal specis; or 2) it can be a source of cheap wood, soy, and beef for global markets.

Just as the Copenhagen effort ended in a frustrating stalemate, the success of this uprising remains very much in doubt. But while the Copenhagen drama involved heated meetings and street protests, blazes are being set and shots being fired in the rainforest.
Showdown on the River
Early one morning in late November, a group of 30 people set out by motorized canoes from the community of Santa Maria of Uruará, in the lower Brazilian Amazon to the junction of the Tamataí and Uruará Rivers, at the boundary of the Extractive Reserve Renascer. The group set up a camp on the riverbank in order to do what the government has not—block illegal loggers who have been taking wood from inside the reserve.

In June of 2009, after more than a decade of conflict between the traditional riberinho (river dweller) communities of the region and loggers and commercial fishers, the Renascer Extractive Reserve was created, albeit at half of the size that the communities had requested. The size was limited in order to accommodate logging and mineral interests, according to government officials involved with the process.

But the creation of the reserve changed nothing—illegal loggers protected by armed gunman have continued to extract timber from inside the reserve’s boundaries. The state and federal government agencies (SEMA and IBAMA respectively) say they have no resources to monitor and enforce restrictions inside the reserve. In fact, after the creation of the reserve, the number of timber barges leaving the area actually increased; until the locals started blocking shipments of logs, up to five barges per day were floating down the river with a total of up to 5,000 cubic meters of wood illegally logged from the reserve.

 The camp that started in late November quickly grew to hundreds of people, blocking passage of river barges and waiting for government agents to come and negotiate with them. What started as a few hammocks strung up in a muddy, mosquito-ridden forest has grown to a village. They cleared out the brush, and each family built a makeshift house from plastic and wood and dug a fire pit. They take turns fishing, and periodically one of them sacrifices a cow to feed the group.

Because the protesters prevented barges from floating down the river for more than a month, the thwarted loggers began to retaliate.  Their planes periodically make threateningly low flyovers; loggers in passing boats yell threats. One night, five men set fire to brush next to the camp.

The Jaurú logging company attempted to bribe the community members to let wood pass down the river. When their offer was rejected, the company hired gunmen to accompany their barges to market. In the early morning of Jan. 3, five log-laden barges set forth, accompanied by 40 armed men. When they reached the encampment, they opened fire on the sleeping, unarmed protestors. Two people were shot. The victims were rushed to the hospital; they survived.

Loggers Call the Shots
The demonstration at Renascer was in part inspired by action taken a month earlier and 100 miles to the west, in an area called Gleba Nova Olinda at the source of the Arapiuns River. On Nov. 12, 2009, people from over 40 indigenous and traditional communities—frustrated after more than a decade of failed negotiations with the state for territorial rights, and increasingly suffering threats and attacks against their leaders—closed the Arapiuns River to logging traffic and sequestered two barges full of timber. The protestors camped on the river’s edge for a month as they waited, to no avail, for state and federal governments to arrive and address the problem. Finally, they set fire to the 2,000 cubic meters of wood on the barges. The fires blazed on for three days.

Over the last 10 years, logging has increased dramatically in the west of Pará, where both of these conflicts are located. Pará is a state in lower Brazilian Amazon that is larger than most countries and is notorious for violent land conflict. The incursion of logging into their territories there has resulted in traditional and indigenous people demanding land rights as a way to protect their communities. But the people have grown increasingly frustrated at the government’s unwillingness or inability to protect their homelands; often, land rights are not granted, reserves are not protected, and laws and management plans are not enforced. 

In some cases, the government is asking for GPS coordinates and photos to prove that illegal logging is taking place—a totally unrealistic request of people who have on average studied to a fifth-grade level, live from subsistence and small-scale market agricultural production, and have only recently gotten gas-powered motors that provide electricity to their homes.  Even when NGOs and outside researchers collect this data, it frequently comes to naught, because officials never follow up and because laws are written or circumvented in favor of logging interests.

So the river dwellers and other indigenous people are taking matters into their own hands, trying to stop the injustices committed against their communities.  Ironically, they’re now the ones being branded as criminals.

In the case of the Renascer encampment, the loggers got a municipal judge to issue an order saying that the camp must be disbanded or the people imprisoned.  Two weeks ago, the police began an action to put six of the leaders from the Arapiuns in “preventative prison,” which would lock them up indefinitely until they are exonerated of all charges. Such imprisonment is normally imposed on people who are at risk of fleeing or who lack physical addresses and jobs, neither of which applies to these leaders.

This sort of punitive action accomplishes two things—it robs the movement of its leadership, and it diverts the movement’s time and energy into a legal battle, distracting from its larger goal of fighting for land rights and curbing illegal logging.

Thus are the power relations in rapidly industrializing Brazil. For people in the United States, tussles over territorial rights and protest camps can seem provincial and distant—regrettable, yes, but in a world overflowing with injustice, not cause for excessive concern. 

But the Amazon is not your average disputed territory.  In recent decades, tropical forests have absorbed 20% of global fossil-fuel emissions, and the Amazon has been the biggest carbon sink of them all, absorbing nearly 2 billion tons of carbon dioxide a year.  The river dwellers aren’t defending a vision of the rainforest as a pristine carbon sink, but rather as a homeland that can support a broad range of species and vegetation, including humans. That might not be what Western environmentalists what to hear, but it’s surely a more ecologically responsible vision than clear-cutting followed by vast soybean monocrops.

As climate change charges forward, illegal logging in the Amazon doesn’t just harm the rainforest’s indigenous residents. It imperils us all.

Link:  http://www.grist.org/article/2010-01-12-battle-brazil-rainforest/

M.C.A. Senna, M.H. Costa & G.F. Pires, JGR, Vegetation-atmosphere-soil nutrient feedbacks in the Amazon for different deforestation scenarios

Journal of Geophysical Research, 114; D04104, doi:10.1029/2008JD010401

Vegetation-atmosphere-soil nutrient feedbacks in the Amazon for different deforestation scenarios

Mônica Carneiro Alves Senna, Marcos Heil Costa, and Gabrielle Ferreira Pires

(Department of Agricultural and Environmental Engineering, Federal University of Viçosa, Viçosa, Brazil)

Abstract

In recent decades, large areas of the Amazon forest have been deforested and the rainforest's future may be dependent on climate and soil nutrient feedbacks associated with deforestation. This is a two-way biosphere-atmosphere interaction problem: the response of the regional climate system to the land cover varies with the forest growth, which, in turn, depends on climate and nutrient stress. Nutrient stress also varies with forest age, being most severe for young forests and declining as forests mature. Here we use a coupled climate-biosphere model to investigate how these feedbacks interact to control the secondary forest recovery after different deforestation scenarios, looking for a threshold of deforestation that could cause dangerous interference on the Amazon recovery. Results show that the reduction in rainfall is proportional to the amount of deforestation and is more drastic when the deforested area is higher than 40% of the original forest extent. In addition, this simulated precipitation reduction alone is not sufficient to prevent the rainforest regrowth. However, when the precipitation reduction is associated with a soil nutrient stress, a savannization process may start over southern Amazonia (northern Mato Grosso state), no matter how much is deforested. In this region, a large precipitation reduction in the transition from the dry to the rainy season and an increase in the dry season duration are favorable to the savanna maintenance on nutrient-limited simulations. These results may be a valuable tool for prioritizing forest conservation in this region, which presently has the highest clearing rate in Amazonia.

(Received 11 May 2008, accepted 4 December 2008, published 18 February 2009.)

Senna, M. C. A., M. H. Costa, & G. F. Pires (2009), Vegetation-atmosphere-soil nutrient feedbacks in the Amazon for different deforestation scenarios, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D04104, doi:10.1029/2008JD010401.

Link to abstract: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD010401.shtml