Vultures are nature’s garbage disposers.

They’re perfectly adapted to keep the environment clean and healthy by efficiently locating and consuming carcasses, recycling energy through the food web and preventing the spread of diseases.

It’s an unpaid role. However it’s about time we did start repaying vultures for their services, by giving them the protection they deserve.

A new study published in the journal Genome Biology illustrates just how finely-tuned these birds are. The researchers perform a whole genome analysis of the Eurasian cinereous vulture (Aegypius monachus) and reveal a unique genetic make-up that explains vultures’ strongly acidic digestive system and their ability to resist infection from pathogens present in the rotting carcasses on which they feed.

It’s even possible vultures are able to exploit the flesh-eating properties of some bacteria to aid with the digestion of soft tissues and bones, while the secretion of corrosive gastric acids and specialised immune responses allow them to resist infection from, and potentially even destroy, highly infective pathogens such as anthrax and brucellosis.

Yet they are all too vulnerable to man-made toxins

This unusual tolerance of natural toxins doesn’t protect vultures from man-made contaminants however, which explains why 69% of vulture and condor species are listed as threatened or near-threatened, most of which are classed as ‘endangered’ or ‘critically endangered’.

The California condor (Gymnogyps californianus), for instance, was declared extinct in the wild in 1987 when the last remaining individuals were removed and placed in captivity to protect them from lead poisoning from ingesting shot and bullet fragments from hunted carcasses.

Although captive-breeding and release programs have allowed the wild population to increase to more than 200 individuals, lead poisoning continues to cause fatalities.

Across Asia the big problem is accidental poisoning by diclofenac, an anti-inflammatory used to treat cattle. In vultures and some eagle species, tiny traces of the drug can lead to fatal kidney failure within 48 hours. In just 15 years, cow carcasses contaminated with diclofenac nearly wiped out three of Asia’s vulture species.

This had a big knock-on effect. With less competition at carcass disposal dumps, where people once let vultures pick dead animals clean, India’s feral dog population exploded. This caused higher rates of rabies transmission at an estimated additional cost of US$34 billion to the country’s healthcare between 1993 and 2006.

Although some populations have started to recover following the ban of diclofenac in India in 2006, a logic-defying 2013 approval to licence the drug for use in Europe now threatens vultures there too, particularly in Spain and Italy.

In Spain, replacing the natural carcass disposal service provided by vultures with vehicle transport to processing plants would result in the equivalent of an additional 77,344 metric tons of CO₂ being emitted to the atmosphere and US$50m of additional payments to insurance companies each year, according to a 2014 study in Nature.

In Africa, vultures are also suffering

The situation in Africa is just as grim – “another continental vulture crisis“, as one group of researchers described it earlier this year. Populations of seven species have declined by more than 80% in three generations, giving rise to calls for six of those to be listed as ‘critically endangered’.

Once again man-made toxins and illegal activities are to blame. Poisoning accounts for 61% of vulture deaths, 29% are attributed to the trade in vulture heads and brains for local cultural beliefs# and 9% of fatalities are caused by electrocution or collision with power lines.

Widespread poisoning is certainly the most immediate threat. Usually this happens after farmers target lions, leopards or hyenas that have been attacking their livestock. Vultures consume the poisoned predators or the baited carcass itself and subsequently become secondary, inadvertent victims.

However the booming illegal trade in ivory and rhino horn is also bad news for them, as poachers don’t want hundreds of circling vultures pointing authorities towards recently-killed elephants or rhinos. Poachers are therefore deliberately targeting the birds by lacing carcasses with poisons – even after they’ve left with the tusks or horns.

More than 500 vultures were poisoned at a single poached elephant carcass in Namibia in July 2013, and the recent discovery of at least 26 elephants poisoned at cyanide-laced water holes in Zimbabwe will also likely result in many vulture deaths.

Vultures make the world cleaner and healthier

Why isn’t this a bigger scandal? After all, as many, if not more vultures are being killed in southern Africa each year as rhinos or elephants. Perhaps these big, bald, flesh-eating birds are perceived as sinister and lacking enough ‘cute factor’.

But while vultures don’t share the good looks of penguins or puffins, the ecosystem services they provide are irreplaceable. They compete with – and control – populations of blowfly larvae, rats, feral dogs and other scavengers, many of which are disease vectors. They ultimately make the world cleaner and healthier.

In fact, the ecological niche occupied by today’s vulture species is so specialised that two unrelated groups evolved on opposite sides of the world to become the primary scavengers in their ecosystems.

‘Old World’ vultures from Eurasia and Africa and ‘New World’ vultures and condors from the Americas might look and act the same but as the latest study highlights they don’t share a recent common ancestor, having diverged in evolutionary terms more than 60m years ago.

This is a classic example of ‘convergent evolution’ – while Old World vultures share a common ancestry with eagles and New World species are more closely related to storks, they independently evolved similar specialisations to fulfil the important role of recycling carrion.

It’s time for us to appreciate these unique and highly-specialised birds. We must restrict harmful veterinary drugs, control illegal poisoning, provide uncontaminated sources of food and reduce the impact of power lines and wind farms.

This must happen immediately to avoid a worldwide vulture crisis – and all of the negative implications for our own health and well-being.

Louis Phipps is a Conservation Biologist at Nottingham Trent University.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Energy Minister Andrea Leadsom has been accused of “talking nonsense” by small solar companies in her constituency after she appeared to suggest that Conservative plans to cut subsidies for the industry were supported by “small solar companies in her constituency”.

Speaking to MPs last week, the energy minister indicated that firms may see the cuts as useful because they will “focus the industry on the most fruitful areas”. She told the Energy and Climate Change Committee: “I too have small solar companies in my constituency, I’ve been to see a few of them as well.

“My local companies are saying, they would argue that there is a very strong business case for solar almost anywhere as a result of the subsidy and what in fact cuts will do is to focus the industry on the most fruitful, the areas where there’s the greatest irradiation, the areas on perhaps commercial roofs where the electricity generator can be used by the company itself.

“So in other words what some of – not all of – my local companies that I’ve spoken to are saying is actually putting pressure on the subsidies forces you to focus on the best outcome.”

‘She’s talking through her orifice’

But companies in Leadsom’s own South Northamptonshire constituency told Energydesk the minister had “no idea what she is talking about” if she thought companies supported the cuts.

Kevin Spice, from Daventry-based Lazenby Energy, said: “Cutting subsidy will cost the homeowner more in the long run as prices rise. Along with thousands of jobs to be lost.

“The only way any company could support such subsidy cuts was if they were to want an unregulated industry which would find itself overcome with cowboys and unscrupulous traders. Andrea Leadsom has no idea what she is talking about.”

Paul Flynn, electrician director at Northamptonshire firm LP Solar and Electrical, was similarly dismissive of Leadsom’s comments: “No we don’t support Leadsom’s stance. Not in the slightest. There will be a lot of jobs lost. The government should have cut gradually. They should have given companies more time to get new technology in. I expect every company will feel the same way.”

Energydesk has asked the Department of Energy and Climate Change for the list of solar companies Leadsom claims to have met with, and will update this piece if it provides one.

A growing barrage of criticism

The government’s policy on renewables has been roundly criticised by environmental groups, while auditors EY (formerly Ernst & Young) released a report last month claiming Conservative policy had undermined investor confidence in the energy sector as a whole.

Leadsom, in fact, told an audience at the Conservative Party Conference earlier this month that energy policy changes have “very regrettably damaged investor confidence”.

More than 1,000 jobs have been lost since solar panel installer Mark Group entered administration just over two weeks ago – efficiency firm Climate Energy went bust soon after, Southern Solar quickly followed suit and then Elon Musk-backed Solar City pulled out of the country late last week.

All of these companies said cuts to green energy subsidies were at least in part responsible for their closures.

US solar giant SunEdison, for instance, recently told Energydesk it is was pulling out of the UK because the cuts would “essentially eliminate the solar PV market.” Planned community energy projects across the country are also under threat, a new report has found.

Kuki Dattani, operations director at the Coventry-based firm Synergy Power, told Energydesk he “feared for the future” of his company: “The government said it was going to revolutionise the solar industry. So it seems like they’ve made a massive u-turn. Leadsom is talking nonsense.”

Joe Sandler Clarke is a UK-based journalist specialising in investigative and public interest stories. He is currently working at the Guardian on the Global Development Professionals Network and Greenpeace Energydesk.

Zachary Davies Boren is an environment journalist writing for Greenpeace Energydesk, the Press Association, The Telegraph, The Independent, Huffington Post, IBTimes, Yahoo, Chicago Tribune and other media.

This article was originally published on Greenpeace Energydesk.

Vultures are nature’s garbage disposers.

They’re perfectly adapted to keep the environment clean and healthy by efficiently locating and consuming carcasses, recycling energy through the food web and preventing the spread of diseases.

It’s an unpaid role. However it’s about time we did start repaying vultures for their services, by giving them the protection they deserve.

A new study published in the journal Genome Biology illustrates just how finely-tuned these birds are. The researchers perform a whole genome analysis of the Eurasian cinereous vulture (Aegypius monachus) and reveal a unique genetic make-up that explains vultures’ strongly acidic digestive system and their ability to resist infection from pathogens present in the rotting carcasses on which they feed.

It’s even possible vultures are able to exploit the flesh-eating properties of some bacteria to aid with the digestion of soft tissues and bones, while the secretion of corrosive gastric acids and specialised immune responses allow them to resist infection from, and potentially even destroy, highly infective pathogens such as anthrax and brucellosis.

Yet they are all too vulnerable to man-made toxins

This unusual tolerance of natural toxins doesn’t protect vultures from man-made contaminants however, which explains why 69% of vulture and condor species are listed as threatened or near-threatened, most of which are classed as ‘endangered’ or ‘critically endangered’.

The California condor (Gymnogyps californianus), for instance, was declared extinct in the wild in 1987 when the last remaining individuals were removed and placed in captivity to protect them from lead poisoning from ingesting shot and bullet fragments from hunted carcasses.

Although captive-breeding and release programs have allowed the wild population to increase to more than 200 individuals, lead poisoning continues to cause fatalities.

Across Asia the big problem is accidental poisoning by diclofenac, an anti-inflammatory used to treat cattle. In vultures and some eagle species, tiny traces of the drug can lead to fatal kidney failure within 48 hours. In just 15 years, cow carcasses contaminated with diclofenac nearly wiped out three of Asia’s vulture species.

This had a big knock-on effect. With less competition at carcass disposal dumps, where people once let vultures pick dead animals clean, India’s feral dog population exploded. This caused higher rates of rabies transmission at an estimated additional cost of US$34 billion to the country’s healthcare between 1993 and 2006.

Although some populations have started to recover following the ban of diclofenac in India in 2006, a logic-defying 2013 approval to licence the drug for use in Europe now threatens vultures there too, particularly in Spain and Italy.

In Spain, replacing the natural carcass disposal service provided by vultures with vehicle transport to processing plants would result in the equivalent of an additional 77,344 metric tons of CO₂ being emitted to the atmosphere and US$50m of additional payments to insurance companies each year, according to a 2014 study in Nature.

In Africa, vultures are also suffering

The situation in Africa is just as grim – “another continental vulture crisis“, as one group of researchers described it earlier this year. Populations of seven species have declined by more than 80% in three generations, giving rise to calls for six of those to be listed as ‘critically endangered’.

Once again man-made toxins and illegal activities are to blame. Poisoning accounts for 61% of vulture deaths, 29% are attributed to the trade in vulture heads and brains for local cultural beliefs# and 9% of fatalities are caused by electrocution or collision with power lines.

Widespread poisoning is certainly the most immediate threat. Usually this happens after farmers target lions, leopards or hyenas that have been attacking their livestock. Vultures consume the poisoned predators or the baited carcass itself and subsequently become secondary, inadvertent victims.

However the booming illegal trade in ivory and rhino horn is also bad news for them, as poachers don’t want hundreds of circling vultures pointing authorities towards recently-killed elephants or rhinos. Poachers are therefore deliberately targeting the birds by lacing carcasses with poisons – even after they’ve left with the tusks or horns.

More than 500 vultures were poisoned at a single poached elephant carcass in Namibia in July 2013, and the recent discovery of at least 26 elephants poisoned at cyanide-laced water holes in Zimbabwe will also likely result in many vulture deaths.

Vultures make the world cleaner and healthier

Why isn’t this a bigger scandal? After all, as many, if not more vultures are being killed in southern Africa each year as rhinos or elephants. Perhaps these big, bald, flesh-eating birds are perceived as sinister and lacking enough ‘cute factor’.

But while vultures don’t share the good looks of penguins or puffins, the ecosystem services they provide are irreplaceable. They compete with – and control – populations of blowfly larvae, rats, feral dogs and other scavengers, many of which are disease vectors. They ultimately make the world cleaner and healthier.

In fact, the ecological niche occupied by today’s vulture species is so specialised that two unrelated groups evolved on opposite sides of the world to become the primary scavengers in their ecosystems.

‘Old World’ vultures from Eurasia and Africa and ‘New World’ vultures and condors from the Americas might look and act the same but as the latest study highlights they don’t share a recent common ancestor, having diverged in evolutionary terms more than 60m years ago.

This is a classic example of ‘convergent evolution’ – while Old World vultures share a common ancestry with eagles and New World species are more closely related to storks, they independently evolved similar specialisations to fulfil the important role of recycling carrion.

It’s time for us to appreciate these unique and highly-specialised birds. We must restrict harmful veterinary drugs, control illegal poisoning, provide uncontaminated sources of food and reduce the impact of power lines and wind farms.

This must happen immediately to avoid a worldwide vulture crisis – and all of the negative implications for our own health and well-being.

Louis Phipps is a Conservation Biologist at Nottingham Trent University.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The lead author of the 2006 Stern Review on the economics of climate change says that although there will be an agreement at the UN climate conference in Paris in December, it’s what happens afterwards that is crucial.

Professor Nicholas Stern warns: “Whatever way we look at it, the action we need to take is immense.”

If governments delay taking decisive measures to halt greenhouse gas emissions, he is convinced that a tipping point on climate will be reached. “In Paris, we need recognition of what we need to do – and how radical that change will be.”

Awareness of urgency

Stern, chair of the UK’s Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and a former chief economist at the World Bank, will be involved in the Paris negotiations.

He told a packed audience at Oxford University that, on the plus side, there is now a much greater willingness to work towards a meaningful agreement on climate change.

Generally, there is far more awareness of the urgency of the issue. China and the US are not – as in the past – “dancing around each other”, but co-operating on how to bring down emissions.

Stern said that during talks coinciding with the state visit to the UK by China’s President, Xi Jinping, Chinese officials said the country’s emissions would peak by 2025 and then start declining. Previously, China said it would not reach peak emissions till 2030.

“I’m very optimistic about what we can do”, Stern said. “That’s not the same as saying I’m optimistic about what we will do.”

According to calculations on greenhouse gas emissions made by countries around the world in the run-up to the talks in Paris, billions more tonnes of climate-changing CO₂ would be pumped into the atmosphere up to the year 2030.

After that, if climate change is to be tackled, there will have to be dramatic emission cutbacks – ultimately to zero. “The cost of inaction is far more than the cost of action”, Stern said.

Zero emissions

Infrastructure that will shape the rest of the century needs to be built – and such projects have to be in tune with the goal of a zero emissions future. As more people move to cities, urban areas being built need to be climate-friendly and energy-efficient.

With current interest rates on the floor, and likely to be so for some time to come, Stern asked: “If this is not the time to invest, when is?”

Stern said that, in the past, some had questioned the fight against climate change, saying that overcoming poverty was more important.

But he argued that the challenges of overcoming poverty and climate change are interlinked. “If we fail on one, we fail on the other.”

Kieran Cooke writes for Climate News Network.

Climate reformers woke up on Tuesday with a reason to smile. North of the 49th parallel, Canadian voters turfed the decade-old government of Stephen Harper.

With close ties to the Albertan oil industry, Prime Minister Harper was an established friend of fossil fuel. As leader of the former Canadian Alliance Party, Harper in 2002 had gone as far as to describe the Kyoto Protocol as a “socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations.”

Harper’s political demise comes shortly after fellow climate skeptic, Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, was removed from office in September by a disgruntled party caucus.

The result is that, just over a month before the official start of the Paris climate conference, two of the most important climate policy obstructionists among world leaders no longer lead their governments.

Do these abrupt changes in Canadian and Australian leadership signal that anti-climate stances increasingly make bad politics? And, are there broader lessons we can learn for next year’s US presidential election?

For those hopeful about the prospects for action on climate change, the departure of Harper and Abbott from the world’s climate stage is unequivocally good news.

Both leaders had a history of throwing roadblocks into global climate negotiations, and each had pushed tepid climate policies domestically. Their policies and statements led activist Naomi Klein to characterize them as leading climate “villains“.

From a global perspective, these two countries’ lack of activity on climate is significant: in terms of total greenhouse gas emissions, Canada and Australia rank as the ninth and 18th largest emitters, and, collectively, they account for about 2% of global emissions.

At the same time, it’s a stretch to suggest that either leader was pushed out of office specifically because of their anti-climate positions.

Grassroots pressure? Probably not …

Australia’s new prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, won the leadership from Tony Abbott despite his pro-climate leanings rather then because of them.

Turnbull had famously been replaced as opposition leader by Tony Abbott in 2009 when he pushed the Liberal Party to support the Labor government’s emissions trading proposal. At the time, he proclaimed that he would “not lead a party that is not as committed to effective action on climate change as I am.”

Six years later, Turnbull finds himself doing exactly that. In a bid to gain the support of fractious party members, he has promised to leave in place Abbott’s unambitious Direct Action policy. Under Direct Action, which replaced the country’s carbon price, the Australian government will pay private actors to reduce their carbon emissions through a competitive bidding process.

If there is hope for a more muscular climate action, it’s that Turnbull will take advantage of latent provisions in the current Direct Action legislation to ratchet up the policy’s ambition.

In Canada, voters rejected Harper for a litany of reasons – climate and the environment were just one of many. Political opponents have long excoriated the Harper government for its poor environmental record. Yet, climate change never broke through during the long election campaign.

Incoming Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has promised to deliver ambitious climate policy, probably a federalist policy that coordinates provincial-level carbon pricing strategies. But many in his party are still smarting after Canadian voters resoundingly rejected their proposed revenue-neutral carbon tax during a 2008 federal election.

Climate opinion polls tell a very similar story. In Canada, public concern with the environment has grown, but only 11% of Canadians cite the environment as the most important issue facing the country today. In Australia, this number is 9%.

So, while there are active and perhaps growing political forces in each country pushing political leaders to take action on climate change, there is little evidence that any policy changes we do see in the near future will be the direct result of bottom-up pressures from their electorates.

The upshot is that climate policy is likely to move forward in Canada and Australia, as political leaders unwilling to take action are being replaced by those more inclined to engage on the issue.

But, the upended political leaders did not lose power because of their positions on climate change. And, although the timing of these leadership transitions is fortuitous as nations gather next month in Paris to hash out an international accord, there is little to suggest that they foretell a radical shift in the politics of climate change across advanced economies.

Marginal voter issue with huge ramifications

This conclusion leads us back to the United States, and the upcoming presidential election. Is there anything to be learned from these recent political happenings in Canada and Australia? Specifically, do candidates that stake out positions that oppose moving forward with climate policy, let alone positions that question its basic scientific veracity, risk losing voter support?

This is an important question given the strong opposition to climate action voiced by virtually the entire Republican primary field, and the efforts by many of the Democratic candidates to make climate change a central issue during this election cycle.

In short, we think the answer is no. Although recent public opinion polling does indicate a growing belief that climate change is real, and people do indicate that they are more likely to vote for a candidate that favors action on climate change, the issue remains a marginal one for most voters.

For example, according to a September survey from Gallup, just 2% of the American public state that pollution or the environment is the most important problem facing the country (significantly less than that in Canada and Australia). For now, at least, climate change remains a marginal issue for most of the US electorate.

None of this is to suggest that the stakes of the 2016 presidential election are anything but extremely high for US climate policy. Quite the contrary.

The outcome of the election will determine if the United States retrenches from the policies and accomplishments of the Obama administration, or moves instead to sustain them, and perhaps even extend efforts to more aggressively address this challenge.

David Konisky is Associate Professor, Indiana University, Bloomington.

Matto Mildenberger is Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of California, Santa Barbara.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

A leaked WWF report exposes the scale of illegal logging in Laos. Almost all of timber exports from Laos go to Vietnam and China.

In 2013, Laos exported 1.4 million cubic metres of timber to these two countries.

That’s more than 10 times the official timber harvest in Laos. Conclusion: over 90% of logging in Laos is illegal.

The Environmental Investigation Agency has posted the report on its website. The June 2015 report is titled ‘Assessment of Scope of Illegal Logging in Laos and Associated Trans-boundary Timber Trade‘.

Last year, China imported US$1 billion worth of timber from Laos, up from US$45 million in 2008. Vietnam is the sixth largest wood-product exporter in the world, but imports 80% of the timber used by its wood processing industry.

Marked “Final draft: for internal use only”, the report was written by Denis Smirnov for WWF. The research for the report was carried out from November 2012 to May 2015 under a WWF project called, ‘Avoidance of deforestation and forest degradation in the border area of Southern Laos and central Vietnam for the long-term preservation of carbon sinks and biodiversity (“CarBi Project”)‘.

The CarBi project is funded by Germany’s International Climate Initiative (ICI) of the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) through KfW, with additional funding from WWF Germany.

In a statement about the report EIA’s Jago Wadley commented: “The prognosis for the forests of Laos is bleak. Industrial-scale illegal logging under the guise of special projects is routine and conducted by untouchable companies, abetted by corruption.
 
“The timber sectors in Vietnam and China are exploiting the situation for their own gain. Laos needs to fully enforce its log export ban and neighbouring countries should ban imports of illegal timber.”

Illegal logging linked to infrastructure projects

WWF’s study found that almost all the logging operations are linked to infrastructure projects such as hydropower dams, roads, mining, and plantations. WWF’s researchers investigated a limestone quarry in Saravan province and a road building project in Sekong province. They found that 100% of the timber extracted from the road project, and 99% from the quarry was illegal.

Logging took place outside concession boundaries, in one case 40 kilometres away from the road construction site. Species of trees were logged that are prohibted for logging under Lao law. Species were exported without documentation of the harvest (including rosewood species). On the road project, the volume of timber exported (as reported to Vietnamese customs) was three times the official documented harvest.

In 2011, EIA’s report ‘Crossroads‘ revealed how the Vietnamese Company of Economic Cooperation (COECCO), linked to Vietnam’s military zone four, had obtained a contract from the Laos Government to log 100,000 cubic metres a year from the Xe Kaman 1 reservoir area.

WWF’s report shows that between 2007 and 2014, almost three-quarters of the logging in the Xe Kaman 1 dam area took place outside the planned reservoir area, including inside protected areas.

In May 2013, WWF’s researchers came across a COECCO logging truck in Ban Phon, Sekong province. From the dam site to the Lao-Vietnam border crossing is about 70 kilometres. Ban Phon is 200 kilometres from the border crossing. COECCO used the concession in the Xe Kaman 1 reservoir area a to log wherever it wanted.

There is a massive wood processing over-capacity in Saravan and Sekong provinces. WWF’s report notes that “Official logging quotas in the provinces of Saravan and Sekong can only fill 25% of installed wood processing capacity at best. The remaining capacity is likely filled with illegal timber.”

Lao authorities have done practically nothing to address illegal logging and timber smuggling. They do not conduct inspections of logging operations linked to forest conversion projects:

“In the four southern Laos provinces they confiscated only about 3-5% of the estimated illegal timber volume in 2011-2012. But even this confiscated timber originated from small operations and the large-scale commercial operations by big companies remained untouched.”

Laos: Talking sustainability but doing exactly the opposite

In August 2005, the Lao government launched its Forest Strategy to the Year 2020. According to this, Laos would transition to sourcing timber from plantations and production forests. Logging would be based on a scientifically calculated annual allowable cut. Timber would be processed in factories in Laos. The government would enforce the export ban on logs and sawn wood.

According to the Forest Strategy, logging concessions linked to infrastructure development would rapidly decline, “as the requirement for construction of major roads and dams comes to an end.”

WWF’s report describes logging in Laos as “exactly opposite” to what was proposed in the Forest Strategy. In 2014, the value of wooden products exported from Laos was US$1.6 billion. Logs and sawn wood accounted for 97.6% of this figure.

Logging is “evolving under a worst-case scenario”, according to WWF: “Contrary to the government’s good intentions developments under the actual scenario will undoubtedly lead to the sheer depletion of commercial timber stocks in its natural forests – on the same path that Thailand, Vietnam and Cambodia have already taken.”

According to EIA, the situation is desperate: “Lao Government’s stated policy of banning exports of logs and sawn timber to promote domestic processing has been an abject failure, with opaque ‘exceptional’ permissions ensuring the flow of wood into neighbouring continues unabated.”

The report: ‘Assessment of Scope of Illegal Logging in Laos and Associated Trans-boundary Timber Trade‘ is written by WWF and made available by EIA.

Chris Lang edits REDD Monitor.

This article was originally published on REDD Monitor.

A leaked WWF report exposes the scale of illegal logging in Laos. Almost all of timber exports from Laos go to Vietnam and China.

In 2013, Laos exported 1.4 million cubic metres of timber to these two countries.

That’s more than 10 times the official timber harvest in Laos. Conclusion: over 90% of logging in Laos is illegal.

The Environmental Investigation Agency has posted the report on its website. The June 2015 report is titled ‘Assessment of Scope of Illegal Logging in Laos and Associated Trans-boundary Timber Trade‘.

Last year, China imported US$1 billion worth of timber from Laos, up from US$45 million in 2008. Vietnam is the sixth largest wood-product exporter in the world, but imports 80% of the timber used by its wood processing industry.

Marked “Final draft: for internal use only”, the report was written by Denis Smirnov for WWF. The research for the report was carried out from November 2012 to May 2015 under a WWF project called, ‘Avoidance of deforestation and forest degradation in the border area of Southern Laos and central Vietnam for the long-term preservation of carbon sinks and biodiversity (“CarBi Project”)‘.

The CarBi project is funded by Germany’s International Climate Initiative (ICI) of the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) through KfW, with additional funding from WWF Germany.

In a statement about the report EIA’s Jago Wadley commented: “The prognosis for the forests of Laos is bleak. Industrial-scale illegal logging under the guise of special projects is routine and conducted by untouchable companies, abetted by corruption.
 
“The timber sectors in Vietnam and China are exploiting the situation for their own gain. Laos needs to fully enforce its log export ban and neighbouring countries should ban imports of illegal timber.”

Illegal logging linked to infrastructure projects

WWF’s study found that almost all the logging operations are linked to infrastructure projects such as hydropower dams, roads, mining, and plantations. WWF’s researchers investigated a limestone quarry in Saravan province and a road building project in Sekong province. They found that 100% of the timber extracted from the road project, and 99% from the quarry was illegal.

Logging took place outside concession boundaries, in one case 40 kilometres away from the road construction site. Species of trees were logged that are prohibted for logging under Lao law. Species were exported without documentation of the harvest (including rosewood species). On the road project, the volume of timber exported (as reported to Vietnamese customs) was three times the official documented harvest.

In 2011, EIA’s report ‘Crossroads‘ revealed how the Vietnamese Company of Economic Cooperation (COECCO), linked to Vietnam’s military zone four, had obtained a contract from the Laos Government to log 100,000 cubic metres a year from the Xe Kaman 1 reservoir area.

WWF’s report shows that between 2007 and 2014, almost three-quarters of the logging in the Xe Kaman 1 dam area took place outside the planned reservoir area, including inside protected areas.

In May 2013, WWF’s researchers came across a COECCO logging truck in Ban Phon, Sekong province. From the dam site to the Lao-Vietnam border crossing is about 70 kilometres. Ban Phon is 200 kilometres from the border crossing. COECCO used the concession in the Xe Kaman 1 reservoir area a to log wherever it wanted.

There is a massive wood processing over-capacity in Saravan and Sekong provinces. WWF’s report notes that “Official logging quotas in the provinces of Saravan and Sekong can only fill 25% of installed wood processing capacity at best. The remaining capacity is likely filled with illegal timber.”

Lao authorities have done practically nothing to address illegal logging and timber smuggling. They do not conduct inspections of logging operations linked to forest conversion projects:

“In the four southern Laos provinces they confiscated only about 3-5% of the estimated illegal timber volume in 2011-2012. But even this confiscated timber originated from small operations and the large-scale commercial operations by big companies remained untouched.”

Laos: Talking sustainability but doing exactly the opposite

In August 2005, the Lao government launched its Forest Strategy to the Year 2020. According to this, Laos would transition to sourcing timber from plantations and production forests. Logging would be based on a scientifically calculated annual allowable cut. Timber would be processed in factories in Laos. The government would enforce the export ban on logs and sawn wood.

According to the Forest Strategy, logging concessions linked to infrastructure development would rapidly decline, “as the requirement for construction of major roads and dams comes to an end.”

WWF’s report describes logging in Laos as “exactly opposite” to what was proposed in the Forest Strategy. In 2014, the value of wooden products exported from Laos was US$1.6 billion. Logs and sawn wood accounted for 97.6% of this figure.

Logging is “evolving under a worst-case scenario”, according to WWF: “Contrary to the government’s good intentions developments under the actual scenario will undoubtedly lead to the sheer depletion of commercial timber stocks in its natural forests – on the same path that Thailand, Vietnam and Cambodia have already taken.”

According to EIA, the situation is desperate: “Lao Government’s stated policy of banning exports of logs and sawn timber to promote domestic processing has been an abject failure, with opaque ‘exceptional’ permissions ensuring the flow of wood into neighbouring continues unabated.”

The report: ‘Assessment of Scope of Illegal Logging in Laos and Associated Trans-boundary Timber Trade‘ is written by WWF and made available by EIA.

Chris Lang edits REDD Monitor.

This article was originally published on REDD Monitor.

A leaked WWF report exposes the scale of illegal logging in Laos. Almost all of timber exports from Laos go to Vietnam and China.

In 2013, Laos exported 1.4 million cubic metres of timber to these two countries.

That’s more than 10 times the official timber harvest in Laos. Conclusion: over 90% of logging in Laos is illegal.

The Environmental Investigation Agency has posted the report on its website. The June 2015 report is titled ‘Assessment of Scope of Illegal Logging in Laos and Associated Trans-boundary Timber Trade‘.

Last year, China imported US$1 billion worth of timber from Laos, up from US$45 million in 2008. Vietnam is the sixth largest wood-product exporter in the world, but imports 80% of the timber used by its wood processing industry.

Marked “Final draft: for internal use only”, the report was written by Denis Smirnov for WWF. The research for the report was carried out from November 2012 to May 2015 under a WWF project called, ‘Avoidance of deforestation and forest degradation in the border area of Southern Laos and central Vietnam for the long-term preservation of carbon sinks and biodiversity (“CarBi Project”)‘.

The CarBi project is funded by Germany’s International Climate Initiative (ICI) of the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) through KfW, with additional funding from WWF Germany.

In a statement about the report EIA’s Jago Wadley commented: “The prognosis for the forests of Laos is bleak. Industrial-scale illegal logging under the guise of special projects is routine and conducted by untouchable companies, abetted by corruption.
 
“The timber sectors in Vietnam and China are exploiting the situation for their own gain. Laos needs to fully enforce its log export ban and neighbouring countries should ban imports of illegal timber.”

Illegal logging linked to infrastructure projects

WWF’s study found that almost all the logging operations are linked to infrastructure projects such as hydropower dams, roads, mining, and plantations. WWF’s researchers investigated a limestone quarry in Saravan province and a road building project in Sekong province. They found that 100% of the timber extracted from the road project, and 99% from the quarry was illegal.

Logging took place outside concession boundaries, in one case 40 kilometres away from the road construction site. Species of trees were logged that are prohibted for logging under Lao law. Species were exported without documentation of the harvest (including rosewood species). On the road project, the volume of timber exported (as reported to Vietnamese customs) was three times the official documented harvest.

In 2011, EIA’s report ‘Crossroads‘ revealed how the Vietnamese Company of Economic Cooperation (COECCO), linked to Vietnam’s military zone four, had obtained a contract from the Laos Government to log 100,000 cubic metres a year from the Xe Kaman 1 reservoir area.

WWF’s report shows that between 2007 and 2014, almost three-quarters of the logging in the Xe Kaman 1 dam area took place outside the planned reservoir area, including inside protected areas.

In May 2013, WWF’s researchers came across a COECCO logging truck in Ban Phon, Sekong province. From the dam site to the Lao-Vietnam border crossing is about 70 kilometres. Ban Phon is 200 kilometres from the border crossing. COECCO used the concession in the Xe Kaman 1 reservoir area a to log wherever it wanted.

There is a massive wood processing over-capacity in Saravan and Sekong provinces. WWF’s report notes that “Official logging quotas in the provinces of Saravan and Sekong can only fill 25% of installed wood processing capacity at best. The remaining capacity is likely filled with illegal timber.”

Lao authorities have done practically nothing to address illegal logging and timber smuggling. They do not conduct inspections of logging operations linked to forest conversion projects:

“In the four southern Laos provinces they confiscated only about 3-5% of the estimated illegal timber volume in 2011-2012. But even this confiscated timber originated from small operations and the large-scale commercial operations by big companies remained untouched.”

Laos: Talking sustainability but doing exactly the opposite

In August 2005, the Lao government launched its Forest Strategy to the Year 2020. According to this, Laos would transition to sourcing timber from plantations and production forests. Logging would be based on a scientifically calculated annual allowable cut. Timber would be processed in factories in Laos. The government would enforce the export ban on logs and sawn wood.

According to the Forest Strategy, logging concessions linked to infrastructure development would rapidly decline, “as the requirement for construction of major roads and dams comes to an end.”

WWF’s report describes logging in Laos as “exactly opposite” to what was proposed in the Forest Strategy. In 2014, the value of wooden products exported from Laos was US$1.6 billion. Logs and sawn wood accounted for 97.6% of this figure.

Logging is “evolving under a worst-case scenario”, according to WWF: “Contrary to the government’s good intentions developments under the actual scenario will undoubtedly lead to the sheer depletion of commercial timber stocks in its natural forests – on the same path that Thailand, Vietnam and Cambodia have already taken.”

According to EIA, the situation is desperate: “Lao Government’s stated policy of banning exports of logs and sawn timber to promote domestic processing has been an abject failure, with opaque ‘exceptional’ permissions ensuring the flow of wood into neighbouring continues unabated.”

The report: ‘Assessment of Scope of Illegal Logging in Laos and Associated Trans-boundary Timber Trade‘ is written by WWF and made available by EIA.

Chris Lang edits REDD Monitor.

This article was originally published on REDD Monitor.

A leaked WWF report exposes the scale of illegal logging in Laos. Almost all of timber exports from Laos go to Vietnam and China.

In 2013, Laos exported 1.4 million cubic metres of timber to these two countries.

That’s more than 10 times the official timber harvest in Laos. Conclusion: over 90% of logging in Laos is illegal.

The Environmental Investigation Agency has posted the report on its website. The June 2015 report is titled ‘Assessment of Scope of Illegal Logging in Laos and Associated Trans-boundary Timber Trade‘.

Last year, China imported US$1 billion worth of timber from Laos, up from US$45 million in 2008. Vietnam is the sixth largest wood-product exporter in the world, but imports 80% of the timber used by its wood processing industry.

Marked “Final draft: for internal use only”, the report was written by Denis Smirnov for WWF. The research for the report was carried out from November 2012 to May 2015 under a WWF project called, ‘Avoidance of deforestation and forest degradation in the border area of Southern Laos and central Vietnam for the long-term preservation of carbon sinks and biodiversity (“CarBi Project”)‘.

The CarBi project is funded by Germany’s International Climate Initiative (ICI) of the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) through KfW, with additional funding from WWF Germany.

In a statement about the report EIA’s Jago Wadley commented: “The prognosis for the forests of Laos is bleak. Industrial-scale illegal logging under the guise of special projects is routine and conducted by untouchable companies, abetted by corruption.
 
“The timber sectors in Vietnam and China are exploiting the situation for their own gain. Laos needs to fully enforce its log export ban and neighbouring countries should ban imports of illegal timber.”

Illegal logging linked to infrastructure projects

WWF’s study found that almost all the logging operations are linked to infrastructure projects such as hydropower dams, roads, mining, and plantations. WWF’s researchers investigated a limestone quarry in Saravan province and a road building project in Sekong province. They found that 100% of the timber extracted from the road project, and 99% from the quarry was illegal.

Logging took place outside concession boundaries, in one case 40 kilometres away from the road construction site. Species of trees were logged that are prohibted for logging under Lao law. Species were exported without documentation of the harvest (including rosewood species). On the road project, the volume of timber exported (as reported to Vietnamese customs) was three times the official documented harvest.

In 2011, EIA’s report ‘Crossroads‘ revealed how the Vietnamese Company of Economic Cooperation (COECCO), linked to Vietnam’s military zone four, had obtained a contract from the Laos Government to log 100,000 cubic metres a year from the Xe Kaman 1 reservoir area.

WWF’s report shows that between 2007 and 2014, almost three-quarters of the logging in the Xe Kaman 1 dam area took place outside the planned reservoir area, including inside protected areas.

In May 2013, WWF’s researchers came across a COECCO logging truck in Ban Phon, Sekong province. From the dam site to the Lao-Vietnam border crossing is about 70 kilometres. Ban Phon is 200 kilometres from the border crossing. COECCO used the concession in the Xe Kaman 1 reservoir area a to log wherever it wanted.

There is a massive wood processing over-capacity in Saravan and Sekong provinces. WWF’s report notes that “Official logging quotas in the provinces of Saravan and Sekong can only fill 25% of installed wood processing capacity at best. The remaining capacity is likely filled with illegal timber.”

Lao authorities have done practically nothing to address illegal logging and timber smuggling. They do not conduct inspections of logging operations linked to forest conversion projects:

“In the four southern Laos provinces they confiscated only about 3-5% of the estimated illegal timber volume in 2011-2012. But even this confiscated timber originated from small operations and the large-scale commercial operations by big companies remained untouched.”

Laos: Talking sustainability but doing exactly the opposite

In August 2005, the Lao government launched its Forest Strategy to the Year 2020. According to this, Laos would transition to sourcing timber from plantations and production forests. Logging would be based on a scientifically calculated annual allowable cut. Timber would be processed in factories in Laos. The government would enforce the export ban on logs and sawn wood.

According to the Forest Strategy, logging concessions linked to infrastructure development would rapidly decline, “as the requirement for construction of major roads and dams comes to an end.”

WWF’s report describes logging in Laos as “exactly opposite” to what was proposed in the Forest Strategy. In 2014, the value of wooden products exported from Laos was US$1.6 billion. Logs and sawn wood accounted for 97.6% of this figure.

Logging is “evolving under a worst-case scenario”, according to WWF: “Contrary to the government’s good intentions developments under the actual scenario will undoubtedly lead to the sheer depletion of commercial timber stocks in its natural forests – on the same path that Thailand, Vietnam and Cambodia have already taken.”

According to EIA, the situation is desperate: “Lao Government’s stated policy of banning exports of logs and sawn timber to promote domestic processing has been an abject failure, with opaque ‘exceptional’ permissions ensuring the flow of wood into neighbouring continues unabated.”

The report: ‘Assessment of Scope of Illegal Logging in Laos and Associated Trans-boundary Timber Trade‘ is written by WWF and made available by EIA.

Chris Lang edits REDD Monitor.

This article was originally published on REDD Monitor.