SUMMARY OF THE FORTY-SECOND SESSION OF THE INTERNATIONAL TROPICAL TIMBER COUNCIL:

7-12 MAY 2007

The forty-second session of the International Tropical Timber Council (ITTC-42) took place from 7-12 May 2007, in Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea. Delegates discussed issues concerning operational, project and policy work, including, inter alia: the selection of a new Executive Director; forest law enforcement and governance (FLEG) in the context of sustainable timber production and trade; CITES listing proposals, ITTO Objective 2000; ITTO guidelines for the restoration, management and rehabilitation of degraded and secondary tropical forests; civil society - private sector partnerships for sustainable forest management (SFM); and developments in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) regarding forests.

Delegates also convened in the fortieth sessions of the Committees on Economic Information and Market Intelligence, Forest Industry, and Reforestation and Forest Management to approve projects, pre-projects, ex-post evaluations, and to conduct policy work. The twenty-first session of the Committee on Finance and Administration also met to discuss the appointment of an auditor, contributions to ITTO accounts, and the relief of Liberia’s debt to ITTO, on account of its civil conflict.

By all accounts, this session was dominated by heated debate over the selection of the new Executive Director of the ITTO, which divided Consumer and Producer groups, and caused regional rifts within the latter. In a dramatic turn of events during a late-night session on Friday, Malaysia and several other Asian producer countries left the meeting in protest of the decision to take a special vote on the matter, after it became clear that consensus was not forthcoming.

There were many interesting initiatives on the table that were overshadowed by this political wrangling. For example, one of these, concerning the link between deforestation and climate change, is designed to expand the scope of the organization’s activities, make a link with the UNFCCC, and attract related funding. While the Council was presented with a report on this issue, there was little discussion or direction forward, due in no small part to the Executive Director selection process.

At the eleventh hour, a gracious withdrawal by the Consumer-backed Swiss candidate allowed for consensus in support of the Producer-backed Cameroonian candidate. All would agree that the new Executive Director is well qualified and a good fit for the job. Nevertheless, he has a formidable task ahead of him in mending the relationships that have been damaged during the course of the selection process – relationships upon which this organization is built.

So has the Executive director been appointed yet? Why does everything always turn political when there are more pressing issues at hand?

Sandman, if the link between deaforstation and climatic change were discussed, can you please put up a summary for us all to see?

Thank you in advance

Are you directly involved in this or you are just making us aware of the happenings? @sandman. If you are, could you please direct me to a forester? I need to ask some questions regarding reaforestation.

If you can help me with that, I will be most grateful.

Thanks

Hello Jazira and Rishika,

The ability for a tree to absorb CO2 does it absorb ultimately varies from tree to tree. An Oak in the UK is not the same as a Eucalyptus in Australia. Each tree has a different ability to absorb CO2. In practice, if the lumber price of a tree is less than its value for CO2 absorption, then foresters will naturally leave the tree to stand. So far, the unit for one Carbon Credit is given as 1 Tonne of CO2. So how many trees does it take to absorb 1 Tonne of CO2? And which particular trees do we choose?

Since the terms of the Kyoto agreement are that trees should be left to stand for 25 years before being felled, I have used the example below to calculate how many 25 year old maple and pine trees are needed to absorb 1 Tonne of CO2.

Typically, a tree reaches a size of around 14” dbh (diameter at breast height and depends on species) at the age of 25 and according to forest charts this tree has a marketable volume of 130 board feet. With prices varying from US$300 – 700 per thousand board feet, this one tree can be worth anything from about US$35 – 75.

According to www.tufts.edu an average 25 year old maple tree absorbs 2.52lbs (1.1kg) of CO2 per year. Over 25 years that’s 27.5 kgs. It means that 36 trees are needed to absorb one Tonne (1000kg) of CO2 and with each tree costing $50, each Carbon Credit should cost at least 50 x 36 trees = US $1800. Otherwise there is more value in felling the trees. Using these trees to give estimates to their carbon value gives very expensive Carbon Credit prices. Clearly these particular trees are not very good at absorbing high levels of CO2.

According to the same website, an average 25 year old pine absorbs 15lbs (6.82kgs) of CO2 per year which means that the cost of a Carbon Credit when measured with this tree is approximately 6 times cheaper at US$300. In other words it takes $300 dollars (6 trees) worth of lumber of this type of tree to absorb 1 Tonne of CO2. If these trees are used as a benchmark for prices the Credit would cost $300.

It’s interesting to note from the website I refer to, how 50 year old trees consume much more CO2 than younger trees. Maybe I should base all the valuations for a Credit on 50 year old trees but this might not be practical to foresters as they will have to leave the trees to reach that age before felling them.

The dilemma is which trees are we to use as the “average tree” for giving Carbon Credits their value. By having a look at the necessary charts for lumber prices, it seems to be hugely variable from region to region and species to species with prices depending on the time of the year and three measuring tables (International, Scribner and Doyle) all measuring trees differently.

For those that are interested, you may wish to contact saggarwal@fo.unitech.ac.pg

She is an expert in Plant Biology, Tree Physiology, Tree Genetics, Wood Science and Technology.

Thank you.

Sandman,
Bikpla tenkiu tumas long yu kamap tisa na skulim mipla ol lain no save long disala kain samting. Now my understanding of this whole thing is getting clearer.

Narapla askim ken, what is the sole purpose of the ITTC and what goals have they set to achieve?

I appreciate what you have put down here and for providing the e-mail add. I will be sending an e-mail over soon.

Thanks