Key Comments from James Hewitt on the Forest Study : September 2004

Key Comments from James Hewitt (quite a few of the comments were general observations and not directly related to trade liberalisation; these have not been answered to)	Response
Unnecessary details in tables	OK. Tables have been simplified and numbers have been rounded either to the closest million, hundred thousand or to a percentage.
Inconsistency in the use of tables	OK. We agree that it would be good to always have the best data to allow consistent comparisons, but it is simply not always possible because of lack of easily accessible data. The study uses both changes in the volume and value as an indicator for changes in trade in forest products, which is a common practice for any product.
Proposal to separate plantation wood and wood from natural forests, and avoid treating natural forest and plantation forests as “substitutes”	OK. However, the study does not equate plantation forests and natural forests. The Inception Report (IR) discussed the differences between plantations and natural forests e.g. in terms of biodiversity. Similar clarifications have been added to the revised MTR. However, forest plantations are classified as forests and are part of forest cover according to the FAO definitions.
Report is too long and lacks focus; message gets lost.	OK. The main text of the MTR is 75 pages including the case studies. The final report will have only summary conclusions from case studies in the text, which should make the report more concise (max 40 p.) and focused. The MTR “discusses” some findings because there are not always clear answers.
A number of statements appear to have been planted in the text – perhaps to meet the wishes of parties keen either to distance the logging industry from blame for deforestation or to promote fast-growing tree farms as a panacea.	This comment would require substantiation. The report does not take anyone’s side and does not promote fast-growing plantations as a panacea.
The report does not consider that China's impact on trade in wood-based products from natural forest warrants particular attention	The draft MTR considers China’s influence in several sections and contexts. China’s impact on natural forests and trade flows within Asia (and recently even outside Asia) are well-known. However, this study does not look at the impacts of China in general on forest products trade and sustainability of forestry or what impact China’s WTO membership may have. The focus is on analysing the possible incremental impacts of further trade liberalisation as part of Doha Round.
The assumption that there is a "North" and a "South" when considering trade in forestry products is fundamentally misguided	OK. The IR and MTR have identified the same units/or groups as proposed in the comments, and does not refer to North-South trade (or paradigm). However, South-to South trade is a commonly used term, and we do not see any reason not to use the term. The revised MTR clarifies what is meant by South-to-South trade (because it involves also internal trade within a unit/group and also NIC countries as well as developed countries in the South.
Conversion forest" aside, the single most important direct cause of deforestation in "permanent forest" in the humid tropics is surely unsustainable forestry	IR and MTR make it clear based on official statistics that the main direct causes of deforestation vary depending on the country and regions. Available evidence does not support the claim that the single most important direct cause of deforestation is unsustainable forestry (unless this also includes clearing of forest for agriculture). The revised MTR clarifies in a number of places, that forest clearing associated with agricultural development is often linked to prior commercial forest harvesting. The difficulty of attributing direct causes of deforestation to a single factor was discussed in IR.
Using trade flows measured in units of import value as a proxy for roundwood equivalent volume can be hugely misleading.	Yes, it can be. In this report this type of import/export information has been used “neutrally” without drawing misleading conclusions.
By stopping the clock in 2002, the authors have been able to omit two important anti-dumping allegations which have recently been upheld against China's exports	We made use of a relatively recent report that had information up to 2002. The two cases mentioned in the comments have been added to MTR.
The forest-based sector may be the economic backbone of many communities - but only because the former economic activities of these people have been displaced by plantations. If this paragraph (and some others) is included without substantial revision, it would be reasonable to question the objectivity of the report's authors and mislead decision makers	The draft MTR just reports that plantations and forest industry provide employment, and in Brazil and many other countries play an important role in the local economies. In a number of places it is mentioned that industrial expansion and related economic growth and increased employment is not sustainable when based on unsustainable forest management. However, one cannot assume that all plantation development is based on displacing people.
A large number of jobs that are generated by the forestry industry are being lost as fast as new ones are created - simply because logging companies here tend to operate on a cut and run basis not sustainably.	OK. See comment above. The MTR already addresses this issues in the case of Indonesia.
It is quite wrong to hype up the value of Indonesia's timber exports	OK. The report does not hype the value but just presents existing statistics. Otherwise, see comment above
There may be no reliable information on Indonesia's illegal log exports per se but why focus only on illegal logs?	OK. The revised MTR expands in a couple places illegal trade to concern also trade in forest products produced using illegally harvested/traded wood.
The text here is inconsistent - the term forestry products is used elsewhere not forest products	The comment is not fully understood.
Contrary to the text, Indonesia's fast growing pulpwood plantations are far from successful.	The draft MTR does not claim anywhere that Indonesia’s fast growing pulpwood plantations are a success. The report says that Indonesia has good growing conditions and the potential to establish and manage plantation successfully due available research information and know-how
The huge expansion in palm oil acreage in Indonesia and Malaysia may cause a glut of palm oil on the market and create unemployment in the palm oil and palm-oil substitute industries	OK, but more relevant for the agriculture SIA.
I recommend that one adds a sentence indicating what progress there has been as a result of these bilateral agreements	OK, a sentence has been added that it is too early to say what impacts these bilateral agreements have had (they are too recent).
The authors appear to neglect or dismiss the potential for consumption to be driven by end-user expectations	OK, the bullet point is clarified by referring to demand for certified wood.
The authors appear to believe that the declining natural forest resource base and rapidly increasing concern about forest sector governance will have no impact on tropical timber prices	OK, a sentence has been added about the possible impacts on prices of internalising the externalities.
The Democratic Republic of Congo exports less timber than any other producer country in the Congo Basin.	OK