UN Forestry fund- Cause of conflict?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by HectortheInspector, Jan 25, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. A $3.5 billion fund to bribe countries not to cut down the rainforests sounds like a nice idea, but due to the failure at Copenhagen to introduce any kind of management controls, it could stir up lots of trouble in places that are reliant on forestry for their economies.

  2. Even though Britain's and Europe's forests have all but vanished. I like the way we will do something ourselves then try to stop others from doing that same thing if it may have an effect on us. Deforestation is a bad thing though, not least for the wildlife that depend on it.
  3. Anyone who has seen chunks of Bos recently will know that it is a serious problem, with lots of illegal logging in the region. Places like Kupres, Vitorog, etc all look totally different now.

    Might seem inoccuous but it is a major environmental issue with serious landslips (revealing pyramids, no less :x ) and all heavily linked to organised crime. Its just a shame that this cash will no doubt be spent by muppets.
  4. Illegal forestry worldwide is thought to comprise about 10% of the value of of ALL global trade (See section 3 of the attached, which is already nearly 10 years old)


    It's not really that $3.5 billion is much. It's a spit in the bucket. The worry is about how that cash is made available. There is a great risk of existing pristine habitat being grubbed up and 'reforested' with something more commercial under the umbrella of environmentalism (See the Indonesian Palm oil plantations) or local tribal people being turfed off to create 'reserves' which are then quietly robbed out of all the high value timber, leaving lots of trees, but big holes in the local ecosystem. (Lots of this happening in Siberia lately)

    Forestry is really big business. Lots of terrorist groups use it to raise funds. Afghanistan used to have forests, until the warlords and Taliban sold them off.

    Once the trees go, so does the wildlife, then the topsoil, and then the water catchments collapse.

    Huge issue, badly underestimated.
  5. Look at the price of wood - the FC has increased its turnover by about 25-30% over the past year without actually cutting any more timber than last year.
  6. Look at the price of wood - the FC has increased its turnover by about 25-30% over the past year without actually cutting any more timber than last year.
  7. We heard you the first time. :)
  8. Sympathetic_Reaction

    Sympathetic_Reaction LE Book Reviewer

    Indeed, but how else do you get a post count that high without the odd double post..;)
  9. Couldn't care less about the wildlife, but I'm not mad keen on the idea of destroying the things which create breathable air (simplified view, I admit!)
  10. Ouch, you know how to hurt!

    Still it makes up for those deleted by maverick, hot-headed moderators!
  11. Look if you are not doing anything illegal, growing and harvesting trees for example, and are generally on the side of the good guys - what possible incentive bar money can the world community offer you? Let's face it the scientific argument is probably corrupt beyond worthwile debate. The don't harvest trees but rather do something else with your economy line seems a bit protectionist.

    Maybe Brazil for example should pretend that they are actually cutting down trees in a conscious programme of eco-terrorism. Next thing they would be getting hodloads of dosh, 500000 NATO troops fighting lumber-lords in the interior and an appointment with regime change...

    They're Scotland's trees!