Opinion piece putting forward the case for a credible, reliable, accessible and transparent mapping system for Indonesia’s forest and land use. This comes on the back of the debate between Greenpeace and the Indonesian Government on the scale of forest cover loss.

The Google Earth Outreach team has awarded a grant to Eyes on the Forest and WWF to host, store and manage map data on Sumatran rainforest. The tool will incorporate a number of layers including forest loss over time, species distribution, conservation intervention priority areas, restoration priority areas, degraded lands and government protected areas. Eyes on the Forest and WWF hope that the data can be used to urge decision-makers to take steps to protect natural forests.

As part of its new policy, APP said it will suspend further natural forest clearance on the 1.1 million hectares of pulpwood concessions it owns until assessments have been carried out to identify areas of high conservation value forest (HCVF). APP will also be asking its independent suppliers, who control 1.6 million hectares to accept the key principles of HCVF and comply by 31st December 2014. On APP’s Rainforest Realities website, Aida Greenbury, Managing Director of Sustainability, said “It is the aim of APP’s policy to exclude HCVF from the supply chain”.

Further media coverage on APP’s new policy.

Further media coverage on APP’s new policy.

Pressure is building on President Dilma Rousseff to veto The Forest Code ahead of the deadline on 25th May. The Forest Code reduces the obligation on landowners to protect Amazonian forest cover down from 80 to 50 per cent, leading to the potential loss of 190 million acres of forest according to the Brazilian Government’s Institute for Applied Economic Research. It is being seen as a battle between the increasingly powerful ‘ruralistas’, legislators representing agricultural interests, and a range of other stakeholders including environmental NGOs, leading national scientific groups, Brazilian celebrities and even many large businesses such as Tetra Pak Brasil.

In response to the new policy Greenpeace cited APP’s commitment to protect HCVF in a New York Times advert in 2006. Despite this commitment it has been reported by the NGO coalition Eyes on the Forest that APP has cleared areas identified as HCVF by third parties.

Further media coverage on APP’s new policy.

Lord Mandelson said his work with APP related to the new EUTR VPA requirement for Indonesian companies to supply only legally harvested timber. He said he would be advising APP on how to make the new regime a success and how to communicate it with customers and stakeholders.

According to an Indonesian weekly news magazine the Ministry of Environment is preparing a civil suit against fourteen pulp and paper companies – twelve linked with APP and two with APRIL – for illegally clearing forests on Sumatra. The value of the timber only represents four per cent of the damages being claimed, the balance is for ‘ecological losses’. The Ministry of Forestry is opposing the lawsuit.

Major amendments to Brazil’s Forest Code are on the brink of passing into law. The changes allow reserve areas in the Amazon to be reduced from 80 to 50% and reduce the restriction on forest clearance near rivers. Agriculturalists have welcomed the amendments.

A remote sensing company has signed a deal with the Brazilian space agency to deliver near real-time satellite imagery to monitor forest clearing in the Amazon rainforest and target illegal logging as it happens. Illegal loggers have grown smart to the current monitoring system by clearing smaller areas to evade detection but the new system will provide a much higher level of granularity in its imaging. Such technology is seen as important in the development of an effective REDD+ programme.

Summary of the latest developments in the Greenpeace APP campaign. It notes the change in tone in APP’s response: they have responded to the latest allegations regarding their use of ramin (a CITES-listed species) only by saying they are cooperating with the Indonesian Ministry of Forestry’s investigation, and didn’t follow their usual line of defence which is to question the substance of Greenpeace’s allegations.