I have to agree with you on a lot of your points.

I’ve always thought that the Kenya Wildlife Service was one of the best wildlife ranger services in the world so when this report was published with its conclusions it was something I certainly did not expect.

If the report is true and poachers are happy and comfortable working in close proximity to ranger camps in Kenya then that has to be invetigated and the reasons need to be found.

thanks
Kevin

I have to agree with you to a certain extent on green groups such as Greenpeace and others.

They are becoming a little boring and annoying in the way that they operate. They are far more interested in raising funds than trying to make constructive arguments to help sustainable development and poverty prevention.

The only really positive things I can say – at least from the UK perspective – is that the membership of these groups is getting older with time as young people turn away from joining them because it’s killing their future hopes and aspirations of good jobs and affordable housing.

Kevin

APP plants 500,000 trees a day as part of its sustainability programme. You never seem to mention that. You will know that APP is set to build the world’s largest mill in southern Sumatra to harvest the plantations that are about to mature there. I would have thought you’d be celebrating that. You should also be aware that the forestry industry contributes $21 billion to the country’s GDP (of which 15.3% is agriculture compared to the UK’s 0.7%). Also, 18 million people are dependent on the sector for work. You can’t just say no to this industry because you don’t like the tree species in the plantations. Don’t forget 50% of Indonesians live on less than $2 goods and service a day. Your TV subscription is probably more than that. What’s interesting to me is the environmentalists never credit these companies for their sustainability programmes.

If Greenpeace wants to impose its sustainability standards on the Indonesian government, then it needs to engage at that level and start using the appropriate language. It can’t keep spouting the donation-seeking stuff it does and then expect a seat at an influential negotiating table.

(I’m not sure you should hold GAR up as a poster child either. You might want to look at the ministry’s report on their activities last year.)

The question that APP still needs to answer is: what has been happening for the past six years if it was already committed to protecting HCV forests back in 2006? The answer is: not a lot.
Investigations have indicated that APP has continued receiving timber from the clearance of natural forests, including those of high conservation value. In fact, as the NGO coalition Eyes on the Forest has reported, APP has even cleared areas previously identified as high conservation value forests by third parties. See page 9 of the report.
Still, this has not stopped APP from repeatedly making the same false claim that it is committed to protecting HCV forests.
Just last year, APP managing director Aida Greenbury, who chaired the Jakarta press conference earlier on Tuesday, promised that “any land which is to be converted must not contain High Value Conservation Forest.” Again, lovely words, but not matched by action.
So, given the company’s track record, it’s difficult to see today’s announcement either as ‘new’ or something that can be welcomed as real progress.
Look at the fine print also. APP says the new commitments will apply to areas “owned” by APP. So how much of the supply chain does it actually own? Rather inconveniently, or perhaps conveniently for APP, no information or supporting evidence has been provided to answer that question.
What’s worse is that we have heard previously that it claims to control less than half of its supply chain. So what is it exactly?
In the end, APP would have been better advised to follow the approach taken by palm oil producer Golden Agri Resources (GAR), also part of the Sinar Mas Group. GAR had introduced a forest conservation policy last year that committed the company to not develop its plantations on forests or peatland.
So if APP wanted to convince customers and other stakeholders that it’s really changing, why didn’t it follow GAR’s lead?
Instead, the company has thrown away a perfect opportunity to convince them that it is serious about reform. The losers continue to be Indonesia’s forests and peatlands, as well as the reputation of Indonesia’s forest sector.