Plantations, poverty and power - Critical Information Collective

More documents

Recommendations

Info

89 The Confederation of European Paper Industries (CEPI): Expansion at any cost The Confederation of European Paper Industries was established to support the interests of the pulp and paper industry. CEPI represents 800 pulp and paper companies in 18 European countries, producing more than one-quarter of world paper production. CEPI aims to promote the expansion of the pulp and paper industry. Several of the European companies that CEPI represents also have operations in the global South. One of CEPI’s key roles is to act as a lobbying organisation on behalf of the industry in the European Commission, aiming for industry-friendly regulation: “CEPI champions the interests of the pulp and paper industry in Europe, representing those interests towards the European Institutions. It monitors, analyses and acts upon EU legislation and initiatives relevant to industry, communicating on the industry’s achievements and the benefits of its products. Through CEPI, the paper industry makes expert and constructive contributions to the official European consultation process with industry.” 456 CEPI routinely plays down the problems created by the pulp and paper sector, as the following (typical) statement makes clear: “The European paper industry is one of the most competitive and sustainable in Europe producing 100 million tonnes of paper and board and 40 million tonnes of pulp annually. It provides directly 230,000 jobs and indirectly 2,950,000 jobs along the forest and paper chain.” 457 In May 2008, CEPI organised a side event at the Convention on Biodiversity meeting in Bonn. Titled “Biodiversity protection, not just words on paper but real best practices by the paper industry!” it promised to show “how through best practices the European Pulp and Paper industry supports forest biodiversity protection.”458 The presentations, of course, had little to do with biodiversity protection. The first presentation came from Hans Verkerk, of the European Forest Institute (EFI).459 Verkerk’s presentation was based on a CEPI-funded report he had co-authored, titled, “Impacts of Biological and Landscape Diversity Protection on the Wood Supply in Europe”. Verkerk’s presentation looked at how much wood might be removed from Europe’s 29.2 million hectares of protected forests if there were no restrictions on logging. The study found that forest protection in Europe resulted in a total of 68 million cubic metres of wood being “unavailable” to the industry. Verkerk’s conclusions were predictable and banal: “Forest protection has a clear impact on the 456 “Energy intensive industries need clarity soon in EU ET”, Confederation of European Paper Industries, press release, 24 January 2008. 457 “Energy intensive industries need clarity soon in EU ET”, Confederation of European Paper Industries, press release, 24 January 2008. 458 CEPI’s flyer for the side event in Bonn is available here: http://www.cepi.org/Objects/1/files/COP9%20side%20event.pdf 459 Hans Verkerk’s powerpoint presentation at the side event is available here: http://www.cepi.org/Objects/1/files/Verkerk_BiodiversityProtectionImpacts.pdf Pieter J. Verkerk, Giuliana Zanchi and Marcus Lindner (2008) “Impacts of Biological and Landscape Diversity Protection on the Wood Supply in Europe”, European Forest Institute, Technical Report 27.
90 availability of wood,” Verkerk said, with a straight face.460 Conversely, if the forest is less well protected, the industry would have a lot more wood available. Verkerk made no mention of what the impact of this might be on the biodiversity of the forests. CEPI has various sub-groups which focus on supporting the interests of specific types of paper production. CEPIPRINT is the Association of European Publication Paper Producers. CEPIFINE represents Europe’s fine paper producers. CEPI Eurokraft looks after the interests of Europe’s paper sack manufacturers. Each of these groups produces material supporting the consumption of ever more paper. CEPI Eurokraft, for example, has produced a series of reports on the benefits of kraft paper packaging. A CEPI Eurokraft report produced between 1998 and 2000, for example, looked at a life-cycle analysis of paper sacks. Not surprisingly, CEPI Eurokraft concluded that paper sacks are more environmentally friendly that plastic sacks: “When comparing the paper sack and plastic sack systems with each other (and comparing all the waste treatment scenarios) the paper sack systems use less primary energy and contribute less to depletion of non-renewable resources and photochemical oxidant creation than the LDPE [low density polyethylene] sack systems.”461 But CEPI Eurokraft could only come to this conclusion by ignoring the findings of the report that it commissioned to compare the various options. CEPI Eurokraft commissioned Chalmers Industriteknik in Sweden to compare four options for delivering animal feed: paper sacks; plastic sacks; semi-bulk plastic sacks; and transporting in bulk. What Chalmers Industriteknik found in its study was that the best system for transporting animal feed was the semi-bulk option, using large, reusable, woven polypropylene sacks: “The results of the study indicate that semi-bulk system gives the lowest contribution to all of the studied impact categories, at least in the base case where the big bags are assumed to be used on average three times.”462 The Chalmers Industriteknik report notes that the more often the plastic sacks are reused, the better the system is for the environment, compared to paper sacks. I am not recommending the use of more plastic bags. I am simply pointing out that CEPI Eurokraft distorted the findings of the report that it commissioned, in order to suit its own ends. The report found that the impact of distributing the animal feed is far higher than the packaging used: “When including the distribution of the filling goods, the largest environmental profits are probably achieved through making the distribution as efficient as possible and through using the least harmful transportation modes (e.g. train) and fuels rather than through the choice of packaging system.”463 460 The quotations of presenters at the side event are from my notes taken during the side event. 461 “LCA of Distribution in Paper Sacks. Executive Summary”, Eurosac and CEPI Eurokraft, 2000, page 11. 462 Anna Ryberg, Tomas Ekvall and Lisa Person (2000) ”Life Cycle Assessment of distribution in four different distribution systems in Europe. Third party report”, Chalmers Industriteknik, October 2000, page 4. 463 Anna Ryberg, Tomas Ekvall and Lisa Person (2000) ”Life Cycle Assessment of distribution in four different distribution systems in Europe. Third party report”, Chalmers Industriteknik, October 2000, page 4.
Page 2 and 3:
1 Plantations, poverty and power: E
Page 4 and 5:
3 CONTENTS Introduction 1. Plantati
Page 6 and 7:
5 New investors have emerged recent
Page 8 and 9:
7 1. Plantations do not plant thems
Page 10 and 11:
9 plantations established on grassl
Page 12 and 13:
11 Nations Food and Agriculture Org
Page 14 and 15:
13 Another reason for the move to t
Page 16 and 17:
15 In his book, “Khor Jor Kor, Fo
Page 18 and 19:
17 Between 1991 and 2006, the numbe
Page 20 and 21:
19 are asking for”, notes WWF. 60
Page 22 and 23:
21 consume fewer goods. Less advert
Page 24 and 25:
23 credit crunch, unstable oil pric
Page 26 and 27:
25 Investment in plantations in the
Page 28 and 29:
27 possible price. Subsidies, linke
Page 30 and 31:
29 2. The anatomy of five pulp proj
Page 32 and 33:
31 However, while the Bank confirme
Page 34 and 35:
33 make way for its tree plantation
Page 36 and 37:
35 In April 2004, about 2,000 famil
Page 38 and 39:
37 Sappi, Swaziland: 50 years of in
Page 40 and 41: 39 after an assessment by the Soil
Page 42 and 43: 41 impact of the plantations on wat
Page 44 and 45: 43 Advance Agro, Thailand: Deforest
Page 46 and 47: 45 confiscation and liquidation of
Page 48 and 49: 47 management was facing a bankrupt
Page 50 and 51: 49 Indah Kiat, Asia Pulp and Paper,
Page 52 and 53: 51 company owners want profits to b
Page 54 and 55: 53 • US$4.5 billion owed by APP i
Page 56 and 57: 55 explained that “association wi
Page 58 and 59: 57 Indah Kiat faces a series of lan
Page 60 and 61: 59 logging. While the investigation
Page 62 and 63: 61 experimental areas and not from
Page 64 and 65: 63 Staples and Office Depot in the
Page 66 and 67: 65 “the exhaustive studies have c
Page 68 and 69: 67 CEDHA has also filed complaints
Page 70 and 71: 69 of converting grasslands to indu
Page 72 and 73: 71 3. Pulp Inc. Profiles of seven p
Page 74 and 75: 73 Thailand, a power plant for a Ne
Page 76 and 77: 75 Management’s experts the possi
Page 78 and 79: 77 A year after Aracruz’s third p
Page 80 and 81: 79 In January 2003, Pöyry announce
Page 82 and 83: 81 Bank in the early 1990s. Groome
Page 84 and 85: 83 Pöyry’s role in the Baikal Pu
Page 86 and 87: 85 Under carbon financing, Pöyry o
Page 88 and 89: 87 Pöyry is working on second gene
Page 92 and 93: 91 CEPI Eurokraft states that “it
Page 94 and 95: 93 sectors need to reduce by 21% co
Page 96 and 97: 95 The ADB’s report notes that th
Page 98 and 99: 97 Nepal In Nepal, the target area
Page 100 and 101: 99 loan for the second plantations
Page 102 and 103: 101 International Finance Corporati
Page 104 and 105: 103 •In December 2000, IFC approv
Page 106 and 107: 105 firm’s activities. After his
Page 108 and 109: 107 safeguards are in practice.
Page 110 and 111: 109 Bank projects are approved by a
Page 112 and 113: 111 •€80 million to Portucel to
Page 114 and 115: 113 The Food and Agriculture Organi
Page 116 and 117: 115 Nevertheless, Poore and Fries n
Page 118 and 119: 117 failure to define industrial tr
Page 120 and 121: 119 FAO’s guidelines recommend th
Page 122 and 123: 121 Rosengren did not reply to my e
Page 124 and 125: 123 Forest Stewardship Council: Mis
Page 126 and 127: 125 body that rubber stamps operati
Page 128 and 129: 127 Criterion 1.6, for example, sta
Page 130 and 131: 129 fast wood plantations have take
Page 132 and 133: 131 Principle 10.8 should prevent t
Page 134 and 135: 133 By April 2004, FSC had, at last
Page 136 and 137: 135 plantations, because it creates
Page 138 and 139: 137 integrated set of common Princi
Page 140 and 141:
139 for clearing areas of Atlantic
Page 142 and 143:
141 Colombia were certified by SGS.
Page 144 and 145:
143 The dissociation became necessa
Page 146 and 147:
145 4. Future planned pulp mills As
Page 148 and 149:
147 Planned pulp projects: 698 Comp
Page 150 and 151:
149 UPM and Sveza Group Vologda Rus
Page 152:
151 paper industry along ecological
show all

Plantations, poverty and power - Critical Information Collective

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?