Why green grabs don't work in Papua New Guinea

In recent years, private companies have acquired long-term leasehold titles to more than five million hectares of what was formerly customary land in Papua New Guinea (PNG), but hardly any of this land has been devoted to production of the four green commodities in which PNG might have some comparative advantage – sustainable palm oil, bio-ethanol, biodiversity and carbon credits. Nearly all of it is dedicated to so-called ‘agro forestry’ projects that appear to be short-term salvage logging projects justified by the promise of a purely virtual form of large-scale agricultural production. I argue that the ‘agro foresters’ have been more successful than the green investors because of a set of political and institutional factors that distinguish PNG from many of the other countries where land grabbing has become the order of the day.     

Mitigation Targets,Burden Sharing and the Role of Economic Modeling in Climate Policy

Within Australian climate policy, the dominant framework for determining national emission reduction targets has been ‘burden sharing’. The prevailing view, both within and outside government, has been that there should be a rough equivalence in the costs that countries bear in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions, at least where countries share similar wealth and capacity traits. This article looks at the practical problems with this approach that stem from its reliance on economic modeling. It is contended that any principled approach to target setting should strive for objectivity but that burden sharing based on projected welfare losses cannot provide this. To illustrate the fallibility of the economic projections that are done for these purposes, the article reviews how one of the greenhouse reporting sectors, known as land use, land‐use change and forestry, has been dealt with in the modelling exercises that have been done in Australia for climate policy purposes.     

The Effectiveness of Non-State Governance Schemes: A Comparative Study of Forest Certification in Norway and Sweden

During the last decade, we have seen the emergence, under the auspices of non-state authorities, of market-driven governance schemes for certification of forest holdings and eco-labelling of wood products. Do these schemes affect actual management practices and environmental protection in forestry? This article examines the effectiveness of forest certification in Norway and Sweden – two ecologically and politically similar countries, but with different certification schemes. It is found that certification processes in both countries have resulted in high participation in certification schemes, high market penetration by certified forest organisations, and reduced conflict prevalence over forestry practices. Although forest certification seems to have modified on-the-ground practices in ways that lead to less environmental deterioration of forests, we still know too little about forest certification’s environmental impact and efficacy as a problem-solving instrument. More research is therefore urged in these areas.