…but any time I read about the seizure of illegally felled timber in Southeast Asia, I sit back and sigh. Anybody who has worked or travelled much in the region will have seen timber – of small and large quantities – that is not exactly procured according to the letter of the law. It is no secret that “illegal” logging occurs extensively.
The trucks, storage space and machinery required for the operation in question - not to mention the noise, traffic and inconvenience caused by such a large movement of timber - means that somebody, somewhere, is just not happy with the deal. That a deal has gone bad seems likely from the information presented. One could conclude that seizures like this are miniscule “victories” in a futile effort to criminalise what should - in many, but not all, areas of Southeast Asia - be a viable, well-regulated, broad-based economic activity.
Of course, some logging practices may not, by some measures, be sustainable. But, and here’s the rub…what is “sustainable” about the hundreds of other industries that are legally allowed to flourish? Examples are legion - I’m sure you can think of a few.
Totemic calls to prosecute “forest destroyers” are merely a socially acceptable way to restrict poor people from engaging in potentially legal, local, lucrative and, when managed properly, environmentally benign economic activities.
What, I ask, is sustainable about that?
1 response so far ↓
1 Andrew Willson // Sep 12, 2006 at 8:43 pm
Recently, the effect of China’s commercial logging ban on regional Southeast Asian forests has been well documented. However as we all know, in this region, the question of forest sustainability cannot be separated from rural livelihood sustainability. Here in Yunnan Province, China, it’s a complex story. Until the logging ban in the late 1990’s, it was widely known that the “forest destroyers” were State-sponsored commercial logging firms. Many community forests were razed, however the rub was that many local communities gained some benefit from being involved in the industry, not only through direct employment or contracting with their tractors or trucks, but also by undertaking their own smaller-scale logging operations. Consequently the logging ban in 1998 has greatly affected livelihoods in some areas. Current forestry policies are attempting to counter this by encouraging participation in afforestation activities by planting tree-crops or pine. However, this is having its own livelihood side-affects – much of the afforestation is on previously cultivated or so-called “barren” grazing land, and there have been problems with farmer compensation and subsidies. The combination of logging restrictions and afforestation implementation problems are narrowing livelihood options in many areas. Also, the style of afforestation may not have the desired benefits to watershed hydrology. While forestry polices allow for villagers to harvest timber for house building, fencing, etc, several researchers are now calling for a more flexible and diversified approach, eg. removing the logging ban from community forests (for more information on this, see the work of Xu Jintao).
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.