---

Rainforests and Logging

rose to call attention to the extent and consequences of the logging operations in the world’s rainforests; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is a great privilege to have the opportunity to introduce this debate. The threat to the world’s rainforests is both real and serious. This is not a new issue, nor is it by any means simple. In 1988, His Royal Highness Prince Philip vividly identified the conflicting and competing claims on these forests, when he noted how,"““to the eyes of conservationists the great natural rainforests are objects of beauty and delight and the habitat of a vast range of plant and animal life. They are also vital components of the world’s climatic conditions and the carbon dioxide/oxygen cycle. But to the governments of countries struggling with internal hunger, poverty and unemployment, with external debt and with a plethora of well-meaning advisers and foreign aid programmes, the forests represent wealth in a fairly easily convertible form””." On 6 June this year, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, in answer to one of my questions, set out the probable long-term consequences for world climatic conditions of the progressive destruction of rainforests. Those include a greater rate of increase in global mean temperature; increased emissions and a lower rate of removal of carbon dioxide; reduced local evaporation rates leading to local changes in temperature and rainfall; changes in patterns of wind and ocean circulation; greater risk of local flooding; regional increases in low-level ozone pollution; and increased production of dust affecting climate through both absorption and reflection of light. An example of the knock-on effects of tree clearance was contained in a report in yesterday’s Times on the drought in the Amazon region. It stated:"““Scientists say that the impact of the drought has been worsened by deforestation—a fifth of the original rainforest has been cut down in recent decades. Cleared areas release less moisture into the air and are less able to hold water in the ground when it does rain, causing excessive run-off. The smoke from fires used to clear forest is also thought to inhibit rainfall””." Yet 2004 was the worst year ever for the destruction of the Amazon rainforests. The dangers of excessive deforestation are well known in government circles across the globe, but the short-term view of individual national interests makes effective international action extremely difficult. Consider, for instance, the cases of China and Japan. Both countries are determined to protect their own native forests, yet both are huge importers of timber. Demand in China is enormous and increasing. It is also unscrupulous about taking vast quantities of illegally logged timber, such as ramin, which reaches that country by a variety of means. During the past decade many attempts have been made to regulate and control timber production and trade. I was extremely grateful for the Answers given on 4 July to my questions by the Lord President of the Council—who I am glad to say will reply to this debate—when she set out in substantive form the vast range of initiatives that have been commissioned and actions that have been taken to try to regulate and control timber production and trade. For example, there has been the Tropical Forestry Action Plan, the UN Forum on Forests, the EU Forests Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade partnership, the World Bank’s programme on forests and the work of the World Agroforestry Centre. In 2002 the Royal Institute of International Affairs reported the outcome of its valuable study for controlling the international trade in illegally logged timber and wood products. There have been a bewildering number of initials and acronyms, and I would love for somebody to bring them together one day. There are almost as many of those bodies as there are trees in the rainforests. However, in spite of all the effort that has been made—it has been considerable over the decades—the sad fact is that forest destruction continues unabated. The picture is a grim one. At least half the world’s rainforests have been felled in the past 50 years. Every minute, another 20 hectares are lost. Trees are destroyed which are literally irreplaceable. Take the case of the sapele in Africa, much of it being felled through selective culling. Apparently it is impossible to encourage any form of natural regeneration. These trees are often between 400 and 800 years old. They rise to a height of as much as 50 metres. In the process of their extraction, roads are built and heavy machinery is introduced. The lower storey beneath the canopy, comprising many valuable plants, is burnt. The forest canopy itself harbours over 40 per cent of all life on the Earth’s surface—a fantastic figure. That canopy is breached with disastrous consequences and long-term implications. The result is that plant species, natural medicines and wild animals are threatened with extinction, some of them even before their existence is known to science. The human costs are also huge. As many as 500 million people depend directly or indirectly on rainforests for their food, water, building materials and medicines. Some of them have a history of forest habitation extending back over many generations. They play an important part in the complex forest ecosystem yet, all too often, they are quite literally pushed aside. Their culture and customs are lost, their homes destroyed and their way of life is gone. This terrible toll is the price exacted to meet the world’s hunger for timber, and to make way for cattle ranches, soy bean farms and oil palm plantations. Little consideration is given to the consequences for plants, animals, people and the environment. Noble Lords will recall that the millennium development goals are to maintain global diversity, to alleviate poverty and to eliminate chronic diseases such as HIV/AIDS and malaria. To achieve these, the part that forests can play, particularly in poverty prevention, should not be overlooked. Forests provide a means of sustenance for at least 80 per cent of the world’s poorest people. This is seen clearly in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The rainforests there are the second largest on Earth. Some 35 million people—75 per cent of Congo’s national population—live in and around the forests. The forests are also home to thousands of plants and animal species. They are all now under threat of destruction. The irony is that this is at the behest of the World Bank. The Rainforest Foundation, which my son and I support—as does, incidentally, the Department for International Development—has been challenging the bank’s policies in this case. They have been campaigning particularly on behalf of the indigenous, so-called ““pygmy people””. The foundation’s director, Simon Counsell, is to give evidence next week on this matter to a Select Committee in the other place. The World Bank is actually requiring the DRC Government to sell off 60 million hectares of rainforest for industrial logging, in the hope of boosting the economy ruined by years of civil war. In this instance the bank’s policies are thoroughly misguided, and it should reconsider them. The UK executive director of the bank should insist on the closest scrutiny of all aspects before agreeing to the project, and in the mean time there should be a moratorium. There is no single or simple answer to all this. Good examples of what can be done are the recently introduced system of regulation and control of timber products through the Forest Stewardship Council’s certification scheme, the Timber Trade Federation’s most welcome code of conduct and the Government’s scheme, the Central Point of Expertise—which could, incidentally, be usefully extended to local government and be adopted by the private sector, where far too many are too ready to trade in illegally felled timber products. Many other initiatives have been taken, but I urge that particular attention be given to the development of non-timber products such as medicines and fruit. These could become a substantial international trade, and would reward those countries engaged in good forestry practice. We also need proper auditing of all resources, not just of timber, but of finance. Good auditing and management are sine qua non. Corruption and malpractice are all too rife throughout this trade. We should also bring the indigenous people more into partnership, with learning how to manage these forests. We need essentially to recognise the fact that these people have defined rights in international law. They understand what goes on in the forests, and if we have the wisdom to listen, we could learn. I hope that, in time, through an extended programme of research and education such as that now being carried out by the Centre for International Forestry Research, there will be better understanding of the significance for life on Earth of the last remaining rainforests. The level of ignorance is still huge, and the potential loss incalculable. The Government have been doing a lot in central Africa, Indonesia, Cambodia and Brazil, through their various partnership actions. I applaud their efforts, but, naturally, quite a lot more should still be done. If the future of rainforests can now be given even higher priority and commitment, there will be the real hope that in this millennium we will move away from exploitation and come to focus much more on conservation and protection. I look forward to hearing the contribution from other noble Lords in this debate. Once again I thank the Minister in advance for taking part, and I look forward to her reply. I beg to move for Papers.