It’s time our Prime Ministers had an honest chat about sustainable development …

by Tim Wilson, October 29, 2010

Today Australian Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, is flying off to Vietnam to attend the East Asian Summit and will then proceed to Malaysia to meet with Prime Minister Najib Razak. They’re certainly going to have a lot to talk about.

The Australian government has commissioned the Blewett Review looking into food labelling laws, and one of the proposals is the separate labelling of palm oil from other vegetable oils. This campaign was started by the hectoring of the anti-palm oil lobby who appear to oppose the use of the oil for any purpose whether it is sustainably harvested, or not.

The review should cause concern to the Malaysian government for two reasons.

First, because any separate labelling of palm oil as different from other vegetable oils would set a precedent and encourage consumer boycotts based on false information.

Second, because it will be government endorsement of the misinformation being put out there by the anti-palm oil lobby. This misinformation recently became apparent to the Malaysian government during recent reports responded to by the Malaysian Prime Minister from misleading attacks by zoos undermining the palm oil industry and attacking Malaysia itself.

The misinformation being put out by zoos has previously been a focus of Sustainable Development’s Report Exposed: The inaccurate and inappropriate campaign by Zoos Victoria. The report concluded that of twelve claims made by the zoo only two are actual facts.

The attacks by zoos have reached such an irrational fever pitch that the Malaysian palm oil industry has lodged a formal complaint with the Australia government. Their action is understandable to protect their commercial interests.

But it is also in the interests of the Australian government to take action. Australia is a liberal country that believes in freedom of speech. But government-funded bodies shouldn’t knowingly use taxpayer dollars to mislead the public on issues surrounding the environment and economic development which is what zoos are doing. There’s also our national economic interest that cheap imports help drive domestic industries. Without them business is less competitive.

No doubt the comings and goings of the palm oil debate will be on the Malaysian Prime Minister’s agenda. And it should be if he’s interested in the ongoing sustainable economic development of his country. And it should be on Prime Minister Gillard’s agenda to ensure the Australian public is being told the truth in food labelling or zoo information campaigns. Currently they’re not.

More evidence | Green protectionist collusion by vested interests

by Tim Wilson, October 8, 2010

Sustainable Development’s recent report, Green Excuses: Collusion to promote protectionism? caused quite a stir. We had representatives from the paper industry contacting us arguing that their calls for protectionism were fair. We disagree because of the risks of tariff escalation.

In Australia some businesses have already changed their purchasing behavior to reflect the impact of these green protectionist campaigns. Commercially they may feel they had no choice because of the risk of greenmailing, but we disagree. The beneficiaries of free enterprise and sustainable economic development also need to defend the system that made them rich so others can have the same opportunities. They should go back to the negotiating table in the interests of workers in the developing world.

Interestingly a group in the United States has come out with similar arguments. The Empires of Collusion report identifies that the tactics used by Australia’s unions, multinational paper subsidiaries and green groups are either being copied, or are being copied from, their equivalents in the United States.

Green protectionism is one of the biggest risks to sustainable economic growth in the developed and developing world alike. It was welcome that The Australian ran an editorial highlighting the negative impact green protectionism can have.

For the developed countries the cost is to industries who rely on imports to be competitive, and consumers who’ll spend more of their disposable income on less.

For the developing world the cost is whether they can sustainably exploit their natural resources on their pathway to development, and the jobs and livelihood it provides for the poor.

There is a desperate need for public debate on how these groups are working together to introduce green protectionism.

As Sustainable Development’s report found, the cost to consumers from the erection of retrograde tariffs and regulatory trade barriers called for by unions and paper industry interests could be significant.

Any cooperation between these groups needs to be exposed to ensure we have an honest debate about the impact of wood imports and the use of forests in the developing world.

In particular policy makers need to take note. And the honesty of Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund have to be questioned. Their reports warrant scrutiny. Then again, they always have.

Ultimately it is up to people to make up their own mind. But they need to have access to fair information.

Both reports shine a light into this black and white debate about wood imports that clearly has shades of grey. I encourage you to read both. They can be found here and here.

Tim Wilson is Director of the Sustainable Development Project at the Institute of Public Affairs.

Sustainable Dev’s work in The Australian and ABC Online

by Tim Wilson, September 2, 2010

Sustainable Development’s work has been attracting attention. This week it has been mentioned in The Australian in an excellent piece by well-respected economist, Michael Stutchbury who looks at the cost and validity of ‘green’ policies in election campaigns. Similarly, we had our own piece looking at the impact of ‘green’ policies on the cost-of-living following the Australian election that was published on ABC’s The Drum.

Submission | World Bank framework for engagement with palm oil should focus on poverty reduction

by Tim Wilson, August 23, 2010

The World Bank is currently completing a consultation on its financing of palm oil projects. Central to the World Bank’s draft is the obligation for certification of palm oil plantations against developed world environmental and social management standards. There is nothing wrong with sustainability certification for agriculture production. But extra costs and regulations will come at the expense of poverty reduction. Sustainable Development has made a submission highlighting it doesn’t oppose voluntary certification, but it opposes compulsory obligations for financing. The submission can be found here.

Sustainable Development in the Bangkok Post and Washington Times

by Tim Wilson, August 9, 2010

Today Sustainable Development was invited to publish an article in the Bangkok Post. The article is here.

While the impact of green protectionism is real for consumers in developed countries like Australia, the worst impact will be on jobs and investment in the developing world.

Unfortunately the impact of protectionist policies is often lost in developed countries like Australia. Though fortunately the Washington Times understands and also accepted a post from Sustainable Development on its Watercooler Blog. The post is here.

New report | Green excuses: Collusion to promote protectionism?

by Tim Wilson, August 4, 2010

Graphic_4_R4_Light

Today Sustainable Development has launched its latest report Green excuses: Collusion to promote protectionism? looking at the emerging collusion in messages by unions, industry and green groups to push for trade protectionism using environmental disguises.

Overseas green groups, unions and industry have a history of collaborating to stop imports in forestry products using environmental arguments. It now appears to have arrived in Australia.

For Australians the impact is concerning because it will result in the increase of the cost-of-living for products like toilet paper by as much as up to 42 per cent in the cost of a roll.

For workers in affected industries in the developing world the impact is likely to be far worse with the loss of jobs and employment.

The report breaks down the key examples of industry, unions and green groups pushing consumer activism and using political and legal avenues to achieve their objectives. Its time their push for green activism is exposed before industries and jobs get lost for some of the poorest people in the world. The report can be found here.

New paper | Exposing Zoos and their political anti-palm oil campaigns

by Tim Wilson, July 4, 2010

Today Sustainable Development released its latest paper, Exposed: The Inaccurate and Inappropriate campaign by Zoos Victoria, looking at the behaviour of Zoos Victoria, and many Australian and New Zealand Zoos, who are engaged in inaccurate political campaigning against palm oil.

It’s important to understand that zoos have a reasonable role to promote conservation campaigns. And they have a reasonable right to promote facts about conservation issues. But Zoos Victoria’s Don’t Palm Us Off campaign does neither.

As the report highlights, of the twelve ‘facts’ promoted by Zoos Victoria on palm oil, only two can be substantiated with evidence. The remainder are directly contrary to evidence, or there is no evidence to support them. And while Zoos Victoria has a broad mandate to promote conservation and zoological resources, the Don’t Palm Us Off campaign doesn’t qualify. It is simply a political campaign based in dodgy facts.

Will Australia’s RSPT be a boon for the developing world?

by Tim Wilson, June 14, 2010

Australia is currently considering a new tax regime for the resources sector. Politically it is unpopular with the mining industry and popular with unions and the welfare sector. It’s understandable that the welfare sector supports more taxation that they will be the beneficiaries of. But it seems odd that the union movement is supporting more taxation on an industry that they rely on for jobs. In any case, the mining industry is arguing that this new tax will result in less mining investment in Australia. And already some mining investments have been put on hold. But the capital of mining companies doesn’t sleep and will surely be put to an alternate purpose, such as developing mines in countries that are currently less attractive. The unions may not realise it, but countries like resource-rich but more profit-marginal Papua New Guinea could be the beneficiaries of their advocacy. Not their workers.

Guest post | Agricultural biodiversity and Sustainability for the Future

by Tim Wilson, June 14, 2010

At SustainableDev.org we are open about our support for market-based approach to economic, social and environmental development. We have had a request for a guest post from a reader, and while we don’t agree with all of the text, we thought it may stir debate particularly in terms of promoting biologically diverse agro crops.

Below is Agricultural biodiversity and Sustainability for the Future by Jack Lundee.

—

Since the beginning of the green movement, there has been a rise in the number of organizations and businesses that are doing their part in the promotion of sustainability through conservation. The climate is continuing to worsen, and individual, as well as collaborative acts are important for any successful green campaign.  As human beings, we’re constantly told to reduce our carbon footprint, consume less unhealthy foods, and spend less time in the shower! But let’s take a minute to step back and look at this from a different perspective; one that Gary Nabham strongly suggests.

Gary Paul Nabham, phD., is a Arab-American writer/conservationist who’s extensive farming work in the U.S./Mexico borderlands region has made him world renown. Specifically speaking, Nabham is known for his work in biodiversity as an ethnobotanist. His uplifting messages and attitude towards life and culture has granted us access to multiple beneficial theories including his latest of eat what you conserve.

According to The United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization, about three quarters of the genetic diversity of crops been vanished over the last century and that a dozen species now gives %90 of the animal protein eaten globally. In accordance, just 4 crop species supply half of plant based calories in the human diet.

Nabham claims that by eating the fruits and vegetables that we are attempting to conserve/save, we’re promoting the granular dissemination of various plant species. But this goes beyond what we typically buy in supermarkets, particularly because of price and abundance. We must remember to try new things and immerse ourselves in the very concept of diversity. Keep in mind; the benefits of splurging for that costly fruit/vegetable supremely outweigh the cons. Not only does one promote biodiversity and further eliminate the need of farmers to remove rare, less purchased crops off their agenda, but one also effectively encouraging healthier lifestyles.

Agriculturist Marco Contiero mentioned that “biodiversity is an essential characteristic of any sustainable agricultural system, especially in the context of climate change.” Contiero believes that people should eat localized crops, spending less time purchasing imports and becoming heavily reliant. Although, has our carelessness set us back a bit already? And what can we do to catch up? How long can we rely on values and suggestions like that of Contiero, granted climate change is a direct result of an increased carbon footprint?

In theory, climate change is a direct result of what we’re doing to our planet – Some would argue the importance of investing in new ways to alter crops to endure such change.

With sustainable crop efforts being lead by the CGI (Clinton Global Initiative) and the IRRI (International Rice Research Institute) the duo plans to provide a more sustainable crop, untouched by natural disasters, much like the consistent flooding in Southeast Asia. Brainchild behind the operation,  Doug Band, the CGI, and the IRRI are investing in ways to genetically alter rice crops; It’s mere research at this point, and previous attempts at genetically altered crops have been known to fail, so what does this mean for biodiversity? Generally speaking, if these engineered plants continued to fail, it could be equal to billions of eco-dollars lost. But we must look at this from both sides of the spectrum; it’s more important that we locate a solution sooner than later, and while the climate continues to worsen, some types of crops (like the rice crops found in SE Asia) simply cannot withstand.

Nabhma and Contiero’s theories both rely profoundly on an action oriented approach at conservation and sustainability. With an abundance of green movements following Earth Day 2010, organizations and individuals have taken a stronger following to expert opinions like the ones demonstrated by both of these highly influential agriculturalists. Disregarding outside influence (i.e. – carbon emissions), these theories are naturally sound and prove noteworthy. So next time you’re in the grocery store, remember to cultivate new agro-products.

Jack Lundee – Supporter of all things green and progressive

Will Nestle’s decision stop 300 football fields of forest from being cleared …

by Tim Wilson, May 19, 2010

We were quite interested to hear that another domino in the food manufacturing industry has fallen for sustained political pressure from Greenpeace et al over palm oil. The announcement by Nestle now means they’ll only buy sustainable palm oil. But have they fallen for a green con?

Green groups have been proclaiming loudly that the palm oil industry is responsible for the clearing of 300 football fields in Indonesia each hour. That’s a lot of tree clearing!

But the FAO has identified that Indonesia’s forests are still as big as France and Spain combined. That’s a lot of forest!

And it is only being reduced by 2.2 per cent a year.

At that rate it would take at least 40 years to remove all forests. And somehow that doesn’t seem likely since 27.5 per cent of all forest is being kept for protection, nearly 20 per cent is being used for conservation and only around half will be used for production. And then there’s conservation space for orang utan.

So the real question is where this claim of 300 football fields being cleared by the palm oil industry come from? In 2005 Greenpeace Indonesia calculated the number in its campaign against industrial and illegal logging. No mention of palm oil.

But that hasn’t stopped the World Wildlife Fund just transposing the number over to the palm oil industry. And now they’re claiming it is South East Asia-wide. That’s a lot of region!

There’s clearly a discrepancy in the numbers and, presuming Greenpeace’s number was accurate in the first place (which we’re not so confident about at SusatinableDev.org), it seems WWF has taken a lot of exaggerative license. But that’s nothing new in green politics!

Meanwhile the FAO estimates that less than a third of deforestation is related to the palm oil industry. And the rest is mostly cleared by poor farmers who need wood for fires and land to grow and collect food.

But the problem is that Nestle is now, yet another, company that appears to have fallen for the green con.

No doubt it’s an easy decision to make in the rolling hills of Switzerland. But there’s the 2 million odd people who rely on palm oil for their livelihood in Indonesia and Malaysia. We doubt they’re taking it so well.

Eds note: In the original posting of this story numbers were used regarding the clearance and protection rates of Indonesian forests. Fortunately, the rates of clearance were too high, and the rates of protection were too low. This post has now been updated with the correct numbers. Apologies for any confusion.