The Greenpeace report on global toy companies and Indonesian packaging material demonstrates little understanding of Indonesia’s strict forest protection laws and about our industry’s commitment to preserving this priceless natural resource. Government law about wood legality is both clear and enforced. Companies ignore the law at the risk of prosecution – and losing their plantation concessions.
To address the environmental, social and economic development needs of Indonesia, the government has
developed a land use plan that allocates which area is for conservation and production purposes.
Understanding that natural forest cannot sustainably supply the need of the timber based industry,
including the pulp and paper industry, the government has allocated around 5% of Indonesia’s landmass
for the forest plantation industry on degraded forest and bare land.
In the development of industrial plantation forest, the remaining tree residue has to be cleared. Industry
use of this tree residue is legally allowed and is the government’s preferred disposal method rather than
burning it or letting it to rot on the ground. It is irresponsible and disingenuous for Greenpeace to tell the
public that the presence of mixed tropical hardwood automatically imply illegal or unsustainable paper
product. To further assume that any paper product that contains mixed tropical wood and acacia fiber is
from Indonesia alone is also false, many developing nations in Asia, South America and Africa, which are
in the process of developing their plantation forestry, also produced this type of fiber.
We are disappointed of Greenpeace’s tactics to exploit the stereotype of backwoods loggers in developing
nations who cleared entire forests with no regard for the environmental impact. The truth is Indonesian
forestry practices are far more sophisticated. Our industry is committed to the creation of clearly defined,
sustainable plantations where we sow and harvest rapidly renewable fiber. We are proud that Indonesian
plantations produce full-grown trees in just six years while companies in many other nations must wait a
lifetime for trees to reach maturity. We are committed to protecting and managing our forest sustainably.
Allegations of anything less are an affront to our industry and the millions of people in Indonesia who
depend on it for their livelihoods.
Authored by H.M. Mansur, Chairman
Indonesian Pulp & Paper Association
Published with permission from original statement.
Tags: APKI, APP, Asia Pulp & Paper, Asia Pulp and Paper, forest certification, forest protection, Greenpeace, Indonesia forest, Indonesian Government, Indonesian Pulp & Paper Association, Mansur, pulp and paper industry, pulpwood, sustainability, sustainable forest management
joseph.sot
Comment 1: "little understanding of Indonesia’s strict forest protection laws" means that any country can have good laws, but if you have weak enforcement then any company like APP can break the law and get away with it. The strict yet dysfunctional Laws are then merely an affront.
and about our industry’s commitment to preserving this priceless natural resource. Government law about wood legality is both clear and enforced. Companies ignore the law at the risk of prosecution – and losing their plantation concessions.
Comment 2: "the government has allocated around 5% of Indonesia’s landmass
for the forest plantation industry on degraded forest and bare land", but since the government is not adequately ensuring that a company like APP is indeed adhering to these restrictions, a company like APP can in fact break the law without much consequence.
Comment 3: "It is irresponsible and disingenuous for Greenpeace to tell the public that the presence of mixed tropical hardwood automatically imply illegal or unsustainable paper product" means that since the laws does allow for the possibility of including tropical wood from cleared areas within the 5% allocation limit, companies like APP can then go ahead and clear illegal areas without fear that the inclusion of illegal wood is going to be interpreted in court as evidence against them.
Comment 4: "many developing nations in Asia, South America and Africa, which are in the process of developing their plantation forestry, also produced this type of fiber" means that APP is not alone in their practices and thus organisations like Greenpeace should spread their resources to address all other illegal logging around the world, taking some pressure off companies like APP.
Comment 5: "Our industry is committed to the creation of clearly defined, sustainable plantations where we sow and harvest rapidly renewable fiber. …We are committed to protecting and managing our forest sustainably." means that APP has hired the Public-Relations firm Ogilvy & Mather to say that they are committed to conservation, but in fact every organisation APP tried to cooperate with in order to certify that APP truly protects the forests has cancelled the cooperation with APP (WWF in 2003, Rainforest Alliance in 2007, now Greenpeace)
Comment 6: "Allegations of anything less are an affront to our industry and the millions of people in Indonesia who depend on it for their livelihoods." means that its OK to break the law and destroy protected forrest as long as you’re making profits and employing poor people, who then take advantage of the livelihood you’re supplying them in order to multiply and further lend credibility to your practices.
boedijaeni
We’re angry because of Greenpeace behavior! Remember…..Indonesia doesn’t belong to you…
Full Disclosure: I am an APP employee