Comments on: International Carbon Initiative Failing: The Case of Papua New Guinea

By: aj

aj — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 18:39:45 +0000

I think that it is amazing that the state of California can dry out it’s agricultural lands and ration the water used by it’s citizens because of a tiny fish, and the harming of this fish results in HEAVY penalties and even prison time, but illegal logging goes unpunished. I have read that illegal logging factions MAY be fined if this reason or that reason, but for the most part the transgression goes unfined. If i can be put in jail for smacking my dog with a newspaper, or for picking a California poppy, then i think terrestrial poachers should rot in prison, if for no other reason but to make an example of them. Doesn’t sound fair? tell that to the poachers convicted for killing endangered animals. Should we hold the importance of our forrests at any less of a standard? The natural world needs more than someone who speaks softly. it needs someone to carry a big stick.

By: Dave Shires

Dave Shires — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 13:34:47 +0000

Thanks! You know this makes me wonder – the problem seems to be more about education and lack of economic opportunity in PNG (or whatever developing nation) as it is with the “west” … These agreements are bound to fail if nothing is done to give people in PNG other opportunities, and worse, if they are enforced with an iron fist they lead to resentment and even more illegal logging.
I don’t know anything about PNG, but there are (small scale at this point) programs in other countries teaching people to be stewards of the forest, rather than cut it down. At first it’s about tourism, but there are loads of ways create businesses out of more sustainable ways of harvesting… anyway, you get my drift. I guess it’s no news to me that massive government programs are full of holes. I’d love to hear about what might be going on on the small business level (if anything) in PNG to do something different!

By: h.henderson

h.henderson — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 12:51:52 +0000

Thanks David for your comments and I apologise for the lack of background information. Being on the other side of the world sometimes I forget that we have a different media scope – that these things aren’t so present in your press and I should have paid more attention to critical background details!! So here goes…I hope this clears things up…
The Partnership, created last year and changed earlier this year with a revised agreement by the new Federal Government of Australia, establishes a system to monitor changes in forest cover and carbon levels. It is designed to provide revenue to PNG as it implements the program to reduce deforestation; making use of the international carbon markets from the Kyoto Protocol.
It seems that the agreement hasn’t improved the current rate of deforestation and that things would go on about the same without the Partnership due to implementation difficulties and some underlying contradictions of the agreement. Some issues include the political will and ability to create and enforce change in PNG, but also on the part of Australia – who once initiated and promoted resource extraction, encouraged business interests in the region and now wants to change practices for the benefit of regional emission reductions.
However I think there is scope to improve the situation, but some of the fundamental issues need to be addressed. Some very good policies exist but they are rarely implemented and corruption persists. And yes, you are right, the majority of logging (90% I believe) is illegal.
Well I hope that helps a little…If you are interested keep on reading more…
There is an excellent background piece by Crikey:
http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20080424-PNG-forest-partnership.html
Or you can check out the Australian government’s website:
http://www.pm.gov.au/media/Release/2008/media_release_0119.cfm
Or there are some press releases with short synopsis’s too
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/07/2182749.htm
http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/news/stories/200803/s2182585.htm

By: Dave Shires

Dave Shires — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 12:05:36 +0000

Just a question – what was the agreement actually supposed to do? I mean, is this deforestation the RESULT of the agreement? Would it be even worse without the agreement in place? The forests are presumably being cleared illegally, right? So it may have nothing to do with an agreement at all, or is PNG just totally failing to enforce it? I feel like we’re missing some details here…