---

Rainforests and Logging

My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Eden of Winton for introducing this debate. The growing concern globally—because it is global, despite rumours to the contrary—about what is happening as a result of global warming is a measure of the realisation of what we are doing to our own environment. This is not our problem which we can solve. That may be a matter of great regret, but it is a harsh reality which we need to recognise. The scale of the problems that we are facing on this front is vast. My noble friend Lord Eden gave us some idea of what it is. But, to put it in perspective, when the World Bank requires 60 million hectares of the Congo to be released for timber, that is 240 times the area of this country. That is a vast area, and we need to think of the problem on that scale. The Amazon basin is 20 per cent felled. We are losing several million hectares more per annum. The Motion refers to the timber trade, but in the Amazon basin, probably at least as big a motive is agricultural development—or should one say, perhaps, agricultural abuse. All too often land is felled or cropped for a few years until fertility runs out. Regrettably, then people move on. There is no easy answer and we will not find one. But I recall, about 20 years ago, listening to the then director of Kew Gardens who had been to the Amazon basin to see the situation there. He returned with the interesting comment that the medicinal value of a hectare of rainforest in the Amazon was greater than the value of a crop of wheat grown on a hectare of good Essex land. We are destroying that, but I suspect that is partly through lack of knowledge, as well as partly through the lack of ability to develop the techniques that we need to extract that value. I will not say that it is an insoluble problem. The key to breaking the cycle that we are in is to provide, as so many noble Lords have said, alternative income for local communities. The other brutal reality with which we are dealing is that, currently, deforestation, timber cutting and then some form of basic agriculture provides a simpler, easier, more guaranteed return on investment. These are problems with which I am delighted that the noble Baroness the Lord President rather than me has to wrestle. We will not find a solution without breaking the economic cycle. I was particularly interested in what my noble friend Lord Peel had to say about the possibilities of carbon trading. Although it is true that in the long term, reforestation is carbon neutral, what is certain is that the felling of forests damages the capacity of the atmosphere to absorb carbon. What is also certain is that if we replace forests, we restore some of that lost capacity. But in the end, it has to be said that tropical rainforests become carbon neutral because they produce as much carbon dioxide as they absorb. However, at the moment we are in the business of destroying them. As long as that goes on, we are doing damage. If we can get the wider world more involved in what is at present a European operation in carbon trading, although another one is now going in the United States, perhaps we can then go some way to creating an alternative revenue source in what are regrettably third world countries. The additional revenue would be extremely useful and we, as developed countries, would be providing something for countries whose effect on global climate can be very great. That revenue stream would at least help in reforestation. Here we come to another dilemma. Do we put sufficiently strong conditions on the aid we give? Certainly if there were a global carbon trading system in place, we would have to be sure that any funds it generated were used for reforestation. I say that because it is a regrettable possibility in some parts of the world that funds coming in from outside do not always finish up being spent in the way they ought to be spent. Aid in all its forms needs to be tied to the integrity of the system that is receiving it. That applies just as much to the issue of deforestation and all its causes. Aid money has to go back into the land and local communities. That is an essential. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, mentioned some of the appalling humanitarian problems that arise as a result of the abuse of land and land ownership, particularly in the Amazon region. Another noble Lord mentioned the Chinese and their huge market for timber. However, we need to recognise in this problem the fact that there are sinners and those who are doing the right thing on both sides of the equation. In this instance, the Chinese are in a dual position because they sit on both sides of the fence. I say that because the Chinese did a great deal to stop deforestation. A result of the floods in the 1990s was that 1 million people were put out of work, so of course today Chinese demand for timber from external sources has increased. If one step is taken for good reasons, it may produce ill effects on others. While we will never get this completely right, we need to recognise that the situation has to improve. I do not want to pick up on anything else that has been said because the situation has been very well outlined by all noble Lords who have spoken. I sympathise with the noble Baroness the Lord President. She has the executive authority to act for this country and I urge her to act internationally with all her colleagues. Without general agreement—and clearly there is a huge degree of agreement—and general acceptance in those parts of the world where this practice is going on that it needs to stop, there will not be a solution. We cannot go on for many more years without a solution. I wish the noble Baroness success.