Dear readers,
On Jul 13, 7:49pm, David South wrote:
> The following data from FAO suggest Japan's forests have increased
> from 23,889,000 ha in 1980 to 24,158,000 ha in 1990.
> Is this a sign of "good" forest policy? Some will say no!
It is not a sign of good forest policy because of it's international part.
The data below indicate in part which forests (in Australia)
Japan is helping to clear:
(Data for 1992, hardwood Australia-Japan Hardwood woodchip trade,
"The Who's Who of Export Woodchipping", 1995, 2, p5.)
Australia Quantity (t) Japanese Japanese Pulp
Exporter Licensed/annum Trading House & Paper Company
----------- ---------- ------------- ----------------
North
Tamar Tas 1,065,000 Mitsubishi Mitubishi Paper
Sumitomo Sanyo Kokusaku
Triabuna Tas 813,000 Mitsui Jujo Paper
Boral
Forest Resources Tas 947,000 Kawatetsu Bussan Daio Paper
Chuetsu Pulp
Sawmillers Exports NSW 500,000 Toyomenka Oji Paper
C.Itoh Daishowa Paper
Harris Daishowa NSW 850,000 C.Itoh Daishowa Paper
Bunnings WA 750,000 Marubeni Hokuetsu Paper
Brisbane Forest Prod. Qld 180,000
Midway Forest Prod. Vic 170,000 Mitsui Jujo Paper
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 5,275,000 tonnes
This is not the full usage of wood by Japan (and it's customers) as
Daishowa Paper Maunfacturing Co. (Japan) imports woodchips also from Brazil,
Chile, Canada, Finland, Portugal, Thailand, Russia & the U.S.A. (ibid., p2).
Obviuosly Japan is not the only country responsible for the deforestaion. It
is a human problem worldwide but mainly for "western" style societies because
of our desires of consumption, comfort and speed.
I propose that Japan's forest
policy is not caused by Japan alone. Such things as the following need
to a point of debriefing for the general public:
"Five major export woodchip companies have joined forces to run a $2 million
national advertising campaign, created by John Singleton Advertising. The
campaign will include 'hardhitting' television commercial, newspaper?
advertisements and an information line. The companies involved- North Ltd,
Boral Ltd, Wesfarmers, Bunnings Ltd, Harris Daishowa Australia and
Midway Wood Products..." ("The Daily planet", 1995, 37, p3).
Some of the state governments (in Australia) have already run dubious
advertising campaigns for several years.
But straightforward, veritable and visionary education is what is actually
necessary.
A member of the Cultural Delegation of AINU (Japanese Indigenous People) gave
the following speech at the 1995 Jackies Marsh Forest Festical (Tasmania)
("The Daily planet", 1995, 37, p8):
"I know what a destructive effect woodchipping is having on the forests and
land of Tasmania and Australia and how this is hurting people. I want to
apologise to you for the actions of the Japanese government and companies who
are part of this destruction.
I have heard that people here often have a stereotype view of Japanese, and
think that the Japanese don't care about the fate of these forests and the
woodchipping. Not everybody in Japan feels this way. The rights of indigenous
people and environmental problems are both important. We should join
together in working on them.
We are human beings- so sometimes we lose our way, and bring damage or harm
to land and people. I also want to ask for your help to make sure that we are
working togehter in the same direction on overcoming woodchipping. Japanese
people who are aware of the problems need to know the most effective action to
take.
As Ainu people, indigenous people of Japan, I am hoping and working to link
together and cooperate with each other."
>
> 1980 1990
> ---- % land area -----
> Cambodia 71 69
> Indonesia 65 60
> Japan 63 66
> Congo 62 58
>
> Spain 14 17
> Canada 28 27
> USA 23 24
> Denmark 11 11
> Australia 5 5
> UK 8 9
>
>
>
>Data are from two FAO reports entitled "Forestry: Statistics today for
>Tomorrow"
It appears that the data do not give an adequate representation
of the state of the worlds forests in those countries with less forest.
The presented data indicate that the percentage of forest in Australia is
steady
at 5%. I propose that this is not the case.
The amount cleared is actually unknown but a minimum is given as
550,000 hectares per annum. (Habitat Australia, 1995, 23(3), p20.)
Also what might be happening with
the Australian data is that some of cleared areas of forest (for forestry) are
being seeded with eucalypt and so the area is claimed to be forested once
again.
In Tasmania at least 14,000 hectares/annum of native forest are logged (mostly
cleared for clearfell, "selective logging" (very low retention rate), roading
and landings). In Western Australia 15,000 hectares/annum is logged. More
clearing is done for livestock, houses and agriculture.
The FAO played a key role in the creation of the Tropical Forest Action Plan
signed in 1985 but it focuses on promoting commercial forestry. In Cameroon,
the national plan proposes opening up 14,000,000 hectares of primary forest,
with the aim of making the country Africa's largest timber exporter
by the 21st century (G. Marshall, "The FAO and Tropical Forestry", The
Ecologist, Vol. 21(2), 1991).
So from this and the fact that Australia does not know it's own rate
of clearance then how reliable are the FAO data?
The rate of mammal extinctions in the last 200 years of European settlement
in Australia is greater than other continents.
There is hope for the prevention of more clearing:
In South Australia by 1980 75% of the state's original bush land had been
cleared. Thereafter 40,000 hectares/annum were cleared. But presently,
South Australia is the only state with present effective controls on broad acre
clearing. There is some protection via the Heritage Agreement Scheme which
involves some compensation. More than $70,000,000 million has been paid to
land-holders who agreed to use area for conservation. Farms with bushland now
command a premium over properties which have been fully cleared.
(Habitat Australia, 1995, 23(3), p24.)
Promotion of "reforesting" pasture and vacant land needs to be paramount.
This should satisfy human wood requirements and if no more native forests are
cleared then other species may benefit too.
(E.g. for the grey goshawk which is classified as rare and "protected by law"
in Tasmania:
"A large proportion (62%)
of the total nest sites found in Tasmania are not protected by the streamside
reserve provisions of the Forest Practices Code. Conserving grey goshawk
habitat may also benefit other species which depend on the same resource and
which may be affected adversely by timber harvesting..." (Tasforests, 1994,
6,pp79-91).)
Regards,
Chris.
--
chris.dean@anu.edu.au, LPO Box 171, ANU, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia.
----Native animals need protection from imported domesticated humans.----
Disclaimer: The ideas and data etc expressed above are mine and not
necessarily those of anyone else.
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0