Open letter to CIFOR (Center for International Forestry Research)

(French version)

From: Oilwatch and World Rainforest Movement
To: CIFOR Director David Kaimowitz

Re: CIFOR study strengthens oil exploitation and mining (*)

July 2003

The Oilwatch Network and the World Rainforest Movement are deeply surprised and shocked by a CIFOR study which appears to give green credentials to two activities that are at the core of deforestation and forest degradation: oil and mining. The study ("Oil, Macroeconomics and Forests: Assessing the Linkages", by Sven Wunder and William D. Sunderlin), constitutes one of the worst examples of a biased, simplistic and unscientific study.

The authors show a total lack of understanding about forest ecosystems and on how oil and mining impact on them and on their inhabitants. The authors fail to understand that a forest is not simply an area covered by trees and that the presence or absence of tree cover is but part of the equation. A forest is an entire ecosystem, including people, fauna, flora, water, air and soils. All these components are severely degraded by oil activities (people are killed, repressed or expelled; local animal and plant species are severely impacted and some driven to extinction; water courses suffer pollution, siltation and alteration; the air becomes poisoned and so on). However, the authors of the study only look at questionable data about forest cover to "prove" that oil and mining serve to conserve forests.

The authors also fail to identify oil activities as a major direct and underlying cause of deforestation and forest degradation. They don't mention that even before a single barrel of oil is produced, prospection activities result in extensive deforestation and in the violation of local peoples' rights. It also results in facilitating access to forests by other actors through the opening of roads, a process which accelerates as oil production increases. The major underlying causes of deforestation and forest degradation (land tenure issues, macroeconomic policies, sectoral policies, external debt servicing, among many other) are either ignored or diluted, putting most of the blame of deforestation on agriculture and livestock production carried out by local dwellers.

The study's conclusions constitute a show case of unscientific manipulation of information. In spite of the fact that the findings in the five countries analysed do not support the authors' hypothesis, they "adjust" them to achieve their aim. They are even forced to divide Venezuela into two different countries --pre and post World War II Venezuela-- simply because the latter proved their hypothesis wrong. Using their same information, anyone can reach exactly the opposite (equally biased, simplistic and unscientific) conclusion. Were the hypothesis to be that oil and mining in no way help to conserve forests, the "conclusions" would be (using the same wording as the authors) that Ecuador (and post World War II Venezuela) are "confirmative cases in absolute terms", that Papua New Guinea is a case of "relative confirmation" as well as Cameroon, "though a more hesitant one", while Gabon and pre World War II Venezuela "were the only cases outright rejecting the core hypothesis."

The authors' solution to the forest crisis is in line with their analytical approach: take people out and let oil and mining companies take care of the forests. The absurdity of this approach is best visualized in their "ten-component so-called 'Improved Gabonese Recipe' for achieving maximum forest conservation". In that respect, it is more than sufficient to mention --with no need to comment-- their point 8 ("Force rural people to settle in concentrated roadside agglomerations"), point 9 ("Waste your agricultural budget on agro-industrial 'white elephants' and ignore smallholders") and point 10 ("Nourish a rent-seeking environment in which few people find it worth while to produce") to declare this study a demential approach to forest conservation.

Within that framework, the authors are finally able to prove that reality does not really exist, by concluding that "Oil production in itself is a negligible direct source of deforestation, compared to national land use. Its direct degradation impacts are variable, and have in many cases declined over time through better practices. The same is true of mining [which is not even addressed in the study] though its effects can be more significant: there are some examples of severe forest loss caused by mining."

For people subjected to oil and mining this study is not only science fiction; it is a mockery of science. We deeply regret that what many people have until now considered a serious research institution such as CIFOR is giving this study its institutional backing. The oil and mining industries will be extremely happy, but this is a very sad day for forests and particularly for forest peoples struggling against what the authors have never had to live with: the social and environmental destruction that these activities entail.

Further strengthening the oil and mining companies, CIFOR is now publicizing another publication (not available through its web page) obviously in line with the one we comment above and written by one of it authors (Sven Wunder). Both CIFOR and the author of "Oil Wealth and the Fate of the Forest: A Comparison of Eight Tropical Countries" perceive the implications of the study. While CIFOR feels obliged to state that it "does not receive funding from oil or mining companies", the author says that "environmentalists should not misinterpret this report". However, if this book reflects the same findings as the one we comment (and the CIFOR news release on this publication show that this assumption is correct), then it will not be a question of "misinterpreting" anything, but of making CIFOR and the author responsible for providing the already extremely powerful oil and mining companies with a very useful tool for greening their image while destroying forests and forest peoples' lives.

Esperanza Martínez
Oilwatch Network
tegantai@oilwatch.org.ec

Ricardo Carrere
World Rainforest Movement
rcarrere@wrm.org.uy

(*) The study is available at the following address:
http://www.wrm.org.uy/deforestation/oil/Cifor.doc

Click here for the reply from CIFOR Director General, David Kaimowitz

Click here for the reply from CIFOR Senior Economist and author of "Oil Wealth and the Fate of the Forest: A Comparison of Eight Tropical Countries", Sven Wunder