The
Convention on Biodiversity, GM trees
and paper consumption
In March 2006, in Curitiba, Brazil,
the parties to the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) discussed
the issue of genetically modified (GM) trees. Some delegates demanded
a moratorium on GM trees. Others requested that the CBD produce
a report looking at the "potential environmental, cultural,
and socio-economic impacts of genetically modified trees".
The CBD produced its report in early
December 2007. The report will be discussed during the 13th meeting
of the CBD's Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological
Advice (SBSTTA), in February 2008 in Rome.
The report summarises the arguments
for and against GM trees, mainly based on articles published in
peer reviewed, scientific journals. "Considerable uncertainty
on the use of genetically modified trees exists," the report
states. Moreover, "the scientific data needed to assess the
potential impacts of these trees is not currently available."
This is because the only way to obtain the data needed to determine
the impacts of GM trees is by planting them in vast monocultures
and monitoring them for several decades. Such an experiment would
prove that GM trees have major impacts on ecosystems and local
communities. Some GM trees would become weeds and others would
spread their genes through outcrossing. Once this happens it will
be too late to demand their return to the laboratory. Clearly
such an experiment would be dangerous and irresponsible.
The Curitiba meeting agreed a decision
which "Recommends Parties to take a precautionary approach
when addressing the issue of genetically modified trees."
The CBD report notes that many scientists echo this decision,
"emphasizing that the precautionary approach should be applied
when considering the use of genetically modified trees."
But this doesn't go far enough. A ban on GM trees is needed.
While the CBD report points out some
of the problems with GM trees, it has little say about the fact
that GM trees will exacerbate the problems of industrial tree
plantations. The impacts on biodiversity, the impacts on the livelihoods
of communities living near the plantations, the impacts on Indigenous
Peoples and the gender issues associated with the impacts of industrial
tree plantations are dealt with superficially or ignored.
Perhaps the biggest fault of the report
is that the CBD regurgitates the paper industry's propaganda that
more efficient plantations will lead to reduced old-growth logging,
"thereby allowing biodiversity conservation in these areas".
This might sound logical, but the reality is that no pulp and
paper company has stopped the expansion of its plantations because
it can grow the same amount of fibre on a smaller area of land.
Brazil's pulp giant Aracruz has conducted decades of research
into faster growing tree plantations. Aracruz's eucalyptus trees
are among the fastest growing trees in the world. Yet the company's
plantation area has steadily increased because it continues to
increase its pulp production.
The CBD report argues that GM trees
with reduced lignin or faster growth would mean that "fewer
trees would need to be harvested to meet consumption needs".
It's worth looking in a little more detail what these "consumption
needs" might be. World production of paper and paperboard
has increased dramatically since 1961, when annual production
stood at 77 million tons. Production had doubled by 1978. By 1999,
it had doubled again, reaching 316 million tons. In 2005, 354
million tons of paper were produced globally. Use of recycled
paper has increased at an average of about 12 per cent a year,
to reach about 46 per cent of global paper production in 2005.
Excluding the use of recycled paper, paper production has steadily
increased, at an average of about three million tons a year. Meanwhile,
per capita consumption of paper globally has also increased. In
1961, average global per capita paper consumption stood at 25
kilogrammes. In 2005, the figure was 54 kilogrammes.
However, these figures conceal a massive
inequity. Consumption in Finland (which has the world's highest
per capita paper consumption) increased from about 100 kilogrammes
per person in 1961 to 429 kilogrammes in 2000 (since when it has
fallen - down to 325 kilogrammes in 2005). In China, consumption
per capita was around 4 kilogrammes in the 1960s. Since 1970,
it has doubled about every ten years. In 2005, paper consumption
in China was about 44 kilogrammes per capita. These figures conceal
another inequity, since much of the paper produced in China is
used as packaging for goods that are exported to the rest of the
world, especially Europe, Japan and North America.
Providing enough paper for China's 1.3
billion people to have the same per capita consumption as Finland
would require the additional production of 422 million tons of
paper a year, which is more than the current total global production.
Of course, low per capita consumption of paper is not confined
to China, and we should also add in the rest of world. The world
population is currently 6.6 billion. If the rest of the world
were to consume the same amount of paper as Finland we would need
to produce 2.3 billion tons of paper a year, or more than six
times current world production. Obviously, this is ridiculous.
But if it's ridiculous for everyone else to consume so much paper,
it must be ridiculous for Finland to do so.
The journalist Eric Sevareid once noted
that "The chief cause of problems is solutions." Promoting
GM trees as solution to "consumption needs" will create
a host of new problems without beginning to address the issue
of overconsumption in the North.
By Chris Lang, http://chrislang.org
The full CBD report (The Potential Environmental,
Cultural and Socio-Economic Impacts of Genetically Modified Trees)
is available at
http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/
sbstta/sbstta-13/information/sbstta-13-inf-06-en.pdf
