Category: Environment

Categories
Economics Environment

[1710] Of solution or shut up

The Kedah state government has come under criticism for its decision to log timber in its water catchment areas. While I disagree with the decision, I feel too many sides are criticizing the state government without providing any solution — with the exception of Sahabat Alam Malaysia (SAM).

Here, I want to offer two solutions to the issue that will leave those trees in peace:

SAM rightly pointed out that Penang needs to compensate Kedah for refraining from logging timber within the water catchment areas from which Penang draws its water supply. In everything that we do, there is always an opportunity cost and Kedah is no different in this respect: one of those costs involves the decision to log or not to log.

A similar idea of compensation was proposed at the United Nations Climate Change Conference held in Bali, Indonesia last year with the objective of halting the destruction of rainforests. The origin of such an idea itself goes back to 1937 when economist Ronald Coase first proposed it. I will not bore you with the economics but what I am trying to do is demonstrate that this idea is not as novel as it sounds.

While SAM gets the idea of Coase, the state-to-state compensation is not as on target as I would like it to be. It does not link the issue with the market and any state-to-state compensation may amount to a water subsidy in the end.

A better compensation method will see consumers themselves compensating the owner of the catchment area and, in this case, the owner is the Kedah state government. This is also the reason why I do not prefer the idea of having the federal government compensating Kedah. This allows the opportunity cost to be included into the water bill of Penang folk. With that, the opportunity cost faced by Kedah will be flipped and eventually provide the state with a chance to reassess its priority. Needless to say, that translates into higher charges for water consumption for Penang folk.

The beauty of this suggestion is that it also encourages water conservation. It reveals the true cost of water to consumers and allows the consumers to appreciate the problem faced by Kedah even more. It is a model for advocating more sustainable water consumption.

The second solution involves property rights. Those who wish for a guaranteed continuous clean water supply from Kedah can purchase rights over the trees or a tract of land within the catchment areas. At the right price, the Kedah state government will sell the rights to the trees and be relieved of the temptation to cut them down. This, of course, only works if the new owners do not succumb to the temptation of cutting down the trees for money.

But the two solutions somewhat digress from my original thought. What I am trying to say is this: please offer solutions. Criticism, however justified, is simply not enough.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

p/s — a version of this article was first published by The Malaysian Insider.

Categories
Economics Environment Liberty

[1696] Of why I oppose the logging move by Kedah government

With budget constraints clearly visible, the Kedah state government announces move to harvest timber from several water catchment areas in the state to increase its revenue.[0] I find the action disagreeable and my opposition is two folds.

First revolves around the question of sustainability. While the state government will utilize helicopters to allow selective harvesting,[1] having the activity done within water catchment areas is really hard to support. I am not convinced on logging done within water catchment areas has sustainability in its equation. On top of that, when referring to sustainable forestry, I always have dedicated tree farms in mind. Furthermore, such tree farms are available in Europe and more importantly, as well as in Malaysia. This proves that the availability of a more sustainable harvesting method. So, I am through and through with the Malaysian Nature Society in disagreeing with the state government.

Secondly, it concerns the function of a government. I, as with many libertarians of minarcist tendency, prefer to have a small government focusing on governance, maybe on some developmental projects with positive externality which the private sectors have absolutely no interest in and little else. So, when the state government says it requires greater revenue to finance its operating expenditure, I could only raise a red flag. In my humble opinion, it is the expenditure which requires reduction.

If the state government plans to do some investment, then borrowing may be a better idea instead. If the investment is really good, I am sure the returns from the investment to cover at least the cost of borrowing some years later. If it is not, well, one has to wonder why should the investment be made in the first place.

Also, the current Menteri Besar himself, when he was in the opposition, opposed the helicopter harvesting when it was first proposed by the previous state administration back in 2003.[2] Now, he holds a different position. Thus, forgive me if I am beginning to think he was objecting then for the sake of objecting instead of seeing the issue on its merit. As it turns out, it does not matter if it is PAS or UMNO; all of them are the same!

The two reasons notwithstanding, I also take exception with the federal government for reneging in its promise to pay Kedah RM100 million yearly for encouraging a logging moratorium 5 years ago.[3] Though I personally think such transfer is inferior to a solution which I shall share next week at The Malaysian Insider, a promise is a promise nonetheless. Inability to fulfill a commitment reflects badly on the federal government and it has its repercussion, not just to the Barisan Nasional, but more importantly, to the country. If the Abdullah administration is incapable of staying true to its words, they should simply stop making more promises.

As in right now, the Barisan Nasional has little credibility. The Menteri Besar’s inconsistent position on the matter does little to differentiate him from the Abdullah administration.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[0] ALOR STAR: The Kedah Government has approved logging activities at the Pedu, Muda and Ahning dam catchment areas, a move that is expected to generate about RM16bil in revenue for the state.

Mentri Besar Azizan Abdul Razak said the move was necessary to cover the high expenditure incurred by the state following the petrol price increase. [Kedah approves logging activities. Embun Majid. The Star. June 19 2008]

[1] ALOR STAR: The Kedah Government is going ahead with its plan to allow selective logging in the Ulu Muda catchment areas using the heli-harvesting technique. [Kedah to use heli-harvesting. Sira Habibu. The Star. June 22 2008]

[2] … Azizan, when reminded that he had strongly opposed a logging plan for the forest reserve when the former Barisan Nasional state government had proposed using helicopters to fell timber trees in 1992, said the circumstances were different then.

He said when he was the state opposition leader, he was not well informed on the matter. [Kedah MB stands firm on logging in the Ulu Muda forest reserve. New Straits Time. June 25 2008]

[3] ALOR STAR, June 18 (Bernama) — Kedah plans to open up the Hulu Muda Forest Reserve to logging activities to increase its revenue as the federal government has not paid the compensation for banning logging in the area five years ago.

Menteri Besar Azizan Abdul Razak said the federal government had not paid the RM100 million compensation to Kedah for banning logging in the area under the National Forestry Policy. [Kedah To Log Forest Reserve To Increase Revenue. Bernama. June 18 2008]

Categories
Earthly Strip Environment

[1695] Of none of them along the line know what any of it is worth

Some background on the logging controversy in Kedah. This is one of those rare instances where I reproduce the whole article.

GREEN groups have always eyed so-called Reduced Impact Logging or RIL techniques with suspicion. Although they do incur less damage to forests then conventional logging methods, RIL methods such as skyline yarder, long haulage ground cable system and helicopter logging — which essentially lift felled trees from the forest floor instead of dragging them — have remained controversial.

There is a nagging fear that they may be misused to log areas inaccessible to bulldozers and tractors, thereby opening the most remote forests to loggers. Or they may be used to log ecologically-sensitive sites on the pretext that they cause little destruction.

In helicopter logging, felled trees are lifted from the forest floor, unlike conventional logging where bulldozers drag logs along skid trails to the main road, exposing huge tracts of soil and damaging surrounding trees.

And now, those fears have come true. Sarawak timber giant WTK Holdings Bhd plans to extend the use of helicopter logging (or heli-logging) to forests in Kedah — forests which are not only untouched, but designated as water catchments. WTK says heli-logging is the best option for the site as it is less destructive than conventional logging.

The Kedah Government has bought into that idea. Last March, it approved in principle heli-logging of 122,798ha of forests. Timber harvesting will stretch over 10 years in two phases in the project by WTK which holds a 80% stake and the Kedah Yayasan Islam, 20%.

Phase I covers 72,934ha of the Ulu Muda forest reserve. Phase II covers 49,864ha in six forest reserves: the Ulu Muda, Chebar Besar, Padang Terap, Pedu, Bukit Saiong and Bukit Keramat. A detailed Environmental Impact Assessment, but only on Phase I, is being reviewed by the Department of Environment (DOE).

If the project proceeds, much is at stake. These forests are gazetted as ”protection forests” because they function as the water catchment for three important dams: the Ahning, Pedu and Muda. Kedah, Perlis and Penang depend on these dams and their catchment for water, as do the 96,000ha Muda Irrigation Scheme, otherwise known as Kedah’s Rice Bowl.

”If trees are harvested, the catchment forest will no longer function as a source of water,” warns a forest botanist familiar with the project. ”The terrain is hilly and logging will lead to erosion and eventually, the dam may be silted up.”

Local folks are protesting too. ”Logging will threaten farming in the Muda area,” says padi farmer Ahmad Fadzil Mohammad, 52, of Kampung Padang Tui Air Hitam, near Alor Star. ”The dams may dry up. Once you cut the trees, there will be less water.” As it is, the Muda area has suffered water woes. Just last year, a water shortage prevented the double cropping which had made padi cultivation there a success.

”Even before logging, we already have water problems. After logging, it will be worse. Only the state will profit from the project. We, the farmers, will suffer,” says Ahmad.

He says many farmers are unaware of the project and its ecological consequences. ”We have formed a group to explain to people so that they will not be confused. They can then judge for themselves whether the project is good or bad.” About 10,000 farmers have supported a signature campaign protesting against the project.

What with Kedah being known as a ”water deficit” area, the Consumers Association of Penang (CAP) says the important consideration here is to protect its water catchment. ”The loss of water due to logging will offset any economic benefits from logging,” says CAP president S.M. Idris. Furthermore, the Ulu Muda forest is one of the last tracts of remaining virgin forests in the country and is known to harbour rich wildlife.

Regrettably, these facts and the basic principle that the area is a gazetted catchment have been blatantly ignored. [Much to lose despite heli-logging. Tan Cheng Li. The Star. March 26 2003]

Oh:

“There must be some way out of here,” said the joker to the thief,
“There’s too much confusion, I can’t get no relief.
Businessmen, they drink my wine, plowmen dig my earth,
None of them along the line know what any of it is worth.”

— Bob Dylan, All Along the Watchtower.

And I like this version:

[youtube]Ka_sHy9cVH0[/youtube]

Holy frak, we are all cylons!

Some rights reserved.

Categories
Environment

[1670] Of a company’s only responsibility is to its shareholders but…

It could be the nuclear option to silence rebellious investors. A libertarian activist has hit back at ExxonMobil’s environmental critics by tabling a resolution that would outlaw shareholder social activism.

The Free Enterprise Action Fund, which controls $11m (£5.5m) of assets, has proposed amending Exxon’s articles of association to prevent the oil company’s shareholders from putting forward advisory resolutions at annual meetings.

The fund’s managing partner, Steven Milloy, opposes a coalition led by the Rockefeller family that is calling on Exxon to pay more attention to global warming. “They’re not bona fide shareholders,” Milloy says. “They’re not shareholders who are invested in Exxon because they think it’s a good investment – they’re shareholders who want to use Exxon to advance their social and political agenda.” [Exxon investors propose ban on green activism. Guardian. May 27 2008]

Looks like somebody in Exxon could not stand it anymore.

Categories
ASEAN Conflict & disaster Environment Liberty

[1642] Of for humanity’s sake, Myanmar must open up

The attitude of the junta government of Myanmar does not make the situation in the Irrawandy delta any better for the country. While the government has appealed for aid from the United Nations,[1] its reluctance in accepting aids from any side is a huge impediment to relief efforts. The reluctance of the government of Myanmar is exemplified by the string attached to its request: they prefer government-to-government aids only and has refused aids from some groups.[2][3][4] Under pressure of time, Myanmar does not have the luxury to be a chooser; it has to be more open in this matter.

The reluctance to allow relief groups to enter into Myanmar is politically comprehensible. Presence of foreigners in the country could potentially expose the locals to ideas hostile to the military junta. If the junta indiscriminately allows all foreigners to access the country, not all of these foreigners would be aid workers. Some would be journalists reporting news that the junta government would want to censor while other may simply be pro-democratic activists hoping to campaign for the upcoming referendum on the new constitution of the country.

From humanitarian point of view however, the reluctance is confounding and angering. How could a government think of its power first above the people?

In answering the question, the junta government is an authoritarian government. Of course it is more concerned for its welfare than that the people the junta rules upon. An authoritarian government is unaccountable to its people and it is no wonder why the junta government places the welfare of the people down in its list.

As the world learns more of the true impact of the horrible disaster, the more unacceptable the action of the junta becomes. If the junta continues with its decision, if there is a government that deserves to be toppled, the junta government has to be the one.

In Myanmar where communication infrastructure is much left to be desired,[5] the provision of aids will be a great challenge. As a result, the action of dispensing aids to those in great need will require time. The government of Myanmar’s reluctance in accepting aidswill only lengthen the time required to get food, blanket and medicine to the victims of Cyclone Nargis. If the United States government performed miserably in New Orleans, the government of Myanmar with its policy centered on isolationism may potentially redefine the term government failure to a new low.

In times like this, it is best for Myanmar to be more open. In the name of humanity, it must open its border.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[1] — The government of Burma formally appealed to the United Nations for assistance, which is quite a breakthrough. That allows us to work now with the government to decide how we can mobilize assistance. Now the question on the ground is about capacity: do we have enough capacity for the U.N. agents to carry out assistance and provide assistance? I can tell you right now: no. Current capacity there now is for normal situations. What we have now is a tragic situation, so the capacity should be commensurate to the level of the crisis. [Some aid delivered in cyclone-ravaged Myanmar. CNN. May 6 2008]

[2] — The government of Myanmar has not officially endorsed international assistance, the UNJLC added, but said Myanmar “is willing to accept international assistance, preferably bilateral, government to government.” [‘A tragic situation’. Newsweek. May 5 2008]

[3] — YANGON, Myanmar – Myanmar’s isolationist regime blocked United Nations efforts Thursday to airlift urgently needed high-energy biscuits to survivors of a cyclone that may have killed more than 100,000 people, U.N. officials said. [Myanmar blocks U.N. airlift for cyclone victims. Associated Press via MSNBC. May 8 2008]

[4] — The government is demonstrating its reluctance now by its slow acceptance of the aid it requested, complicating visa procedures for international donors and apparently seeking to limit the access of foreign relief workers. [A crack in Myanmar’s wall. Seth Mydans. International Herald Tribune. May 7 2008]

[5] — Before we do anything, one has to take into account the specific damage that has been waged. The roads have been blocked, communications [are] down, and the area is not the most advanced in terms of communication capabilities. So it’s very difficult to assess the damage at this point. [‘A tragic situation’. Newsweek. May 5 2008]