In the last decades several South American countries have been the scenario of the expansion of tree monocultures --basically eucalyptus and pines-- mostly devoted to pulp production. The newly created carbon market can mean a renewed push to further expand this activity, this time with a new or additional purpose. In fact, forestry companies and some governments are very enthusiastic about the idea of using part of the already existing plantations and installing new ones to serve as carbon sinks.

Embattled by their respective external debts, thus considering every foreign investment as a potential source of fresh monies and turning a deaf ear to the increasing criticism over this forestry model, several governments both in tropical and temperate regions of the continent --including Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Colombia, Ecuador and Bolivia-- are playing a double role. On the one hand offering their support to private companies to implement carbon sequestration projects through plantations, and in line with this, trying to promote the inclusion of tree plantations in the CDM at the Convention on Climate Change process.

In ARGENTINA the government has been favouring investments in plantation projects since 1998. During the Convention's Conference of the Parties (COP4) held in Buenos Aires, the former Secretary of the Environment and Natural Resources María Julia Alsogaray expressed very clearly that her country was in favour of voluntary commitments by non-Annex I countries to counteract global warming. Since then, the government has been favouring tree plantations. Oil and forestry companies have quickly embraced the idea, which would allow them not only to earn money but also to appear as concerned with global warming --the same that they so much contribute to generate-- to the eyes of public opinion. Formerly state-owned oil company YPF --now privatized and associated with Repsol of Spain-- is implementing pine plantations in the south of the country, while Shell already owns more than 32,000 hectares in Buenos Aires and Corrientes provinces. Forestry companies are also active in this regard: Pecom Forestal owns pine plantations in several Argentinian provinces, which will be "reconverted" to carbon sinks, and is negotiating carbon emissions permits with the German companies that are involved in the controversial Chubut-Prima Klima agreement to sequester carbon in Chubut province. The local NGO coalition Foro del Buen Ayre, which was very active during the COP4 negotiations, has recently severely criticized the Argentinian government's approach to global warming and its support to carbon sinks, due to the negative social and environmental consequences of this type of forestry.

Neighbouring URUGUAY is also seeing with good eyes the option of plantations as carbon sinks. Forestry officials and foresters --which in reality are one and the same-- are trying to convince public opinion that the country's cattle-related methane emissions are very high and that the country could "compensate" them by establishing carbon sink tree plantations. Additionally, they consider that with the present area of 500,000 hectares occupied by plantations of eucalyptus and pines the country could receive up to U$S 40 million a year from the carbon offset market. It is interesting to underscore that since 1989 the Uruguayan state is spending a yearly sum of about U$S 20 million as subsidies to plantation companies. National social and environmental NGOs are highly critical about their government's position.

Surprising it may seem, Argentinian and Uruguayan authorities seem to have forgotten that grassland soils are rich in organic matter, which means that they constitute huge carbon reservoirs. The effect of plantations on these reservoirs is uncertain and presumably negative. Instead of dreaming of risky forestry megaprojects, a useful contribution of countries located in the temperate region to curbe global warming would be to conserve soils and grasslands --with the additional positive effect on biodiversity and water conservation.

The enthusiasm of CHILEAN officials regarding carbon sinks is really worrying. Not only because this country has provided the model for other South American states to promote the forestry sector, but also since powerful Chilean forestry companies are entering other Southern Cone countries. The Chilean model has proved at home to be completely unsustainable, both from an ecological (it provoked the destruction of vast areas of forests in the South) and the social point of view (plantations have invaded the Mapuche indigenous people traditional lands).

The idea of tree plantations as carbon sinks has had until now a cold reception in BRAZIL. Nevertheless, the project of "carbon-sequestering trees" promoted by Peugeot can be a good example of what can happen in the future in case the present trend prevails. Suddenly concerned with global warming, in 1998 Peugeot launched a project to convert 12,000 hectares of "degraded" lands into plantations in the State of Mato Grosso, which would remove 180,000 tonnes of carbon a year at the low cost of U$S 12 million. Local people and the environment had to pay for the really high cost of the project, since during land preparation for the plantation 5,000 litres of glyphosate were spread, which reached nearby water courses, producing an ecological disaster.

At present the most relevant case that shows how dangerous carbon sink projects in the forestry sector can be is that of the FACE project in ECUADOR. In a thesis work of the Autonomous University of Barcelona, the social and environmental impacts of the pine plantations in the Andean Páramo carried out by the Dutch electricity consortium FACE were analyzed. The Páramo is a grasslands highland region in the Ecuadorian Andes, which are crucial for the maintenance of the hydrological cycle and for biodiversity conservation. It is inhabited by indigenous people communities, which live on agriculture and cattle breeding. The FACE project aims at establishing 75,000 hectares of pine and eucalyptus plantations there to "compensate" for the companies' emissions of carbon dioxide in The Netherlands. The study proves that the carbon uptake by FACE’s pine plantations has proved to be far below the expected figure. Moreover, the plantations can produce the effect of promoting the oxidation of the soil organic matter, thus resulting in emissions of carbon to the atmosphere and a negative carbon balance. At the local level, the study shows the negative impacts of plantations on the economy of the indigenous communities that before the project could live there through a wise management of this fragile ecosystem. In this case, plantations are not only a false solution to global warming --resulting in a negative carbon balance-- but they can also distort sustainable cultural and economic systems.

In sum, it is clear that for South American people and environment, the promotion of carbon sink plantations will only exacerbate problems at the local level. However, governments are being pushed into this scheme by a number of interested parties --local and international, private and public-- who have much to gain in the carbon market game ... but for whom the true issue at stake --global climate change-- seems to be more an excuse to earn money than a problem that needs to be addressed. (Bulletin August, 2000)

At the COP4 of the Climate Change Convention held in Buenos Aires, Brazil, together with China and India, led the position of developing countries demanding the acknowledgement of historical responsibilities by countries in relation to climate change. The Brazilian delegation also underscored the need for the protection of the Amazon forest. However, domestic forest policy does not seem to go in the same direction.

During a recent workshop on the environmental impact of large-scale development projects in the Amazon and Mato Grosso regions, organized by CIMI (Conselho Indigenista Misionario), information was revealed that the Ministry of Mining and Energy will build 400 new hydroelectric dams by the year 2015. Many of them will flood large areas of forest lands belonging to indigenous communities.

Additionally, the degradation and destruction of vast areas of the Amazon forest by fires has continued throughout 1998. Both degradation and elimination of forests will contribute to accelerate global warming. Research carried out by the Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazonia –an NGO based in Belem, in northern Brazil- and the Woods Hole Research Center, based in Massachusetts, had predicted that approximately 400,000 square kilometres of the Brazilian Amazon would become vulnerable to fire during the 1998 dry season. The unusually low amounts of rainfall in 1998 have increased the area of fire-vulnerable forest to more than one million square kilometres, or one third of the Amazonian forest. However, the degradation of forests burnt and left standing is not included in the government's monitoring program, that only considers total burning and clearcutting as deforestation and therefore official figures hide significant amounts of carbon released through partial burning of forests.

In relation to climate change, these results are important for the estimation of carbon emissions from Amazonian forests associated with land use practices: the partial burning of standing forest can release 10 to 80% of forest biomass to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. Such large amounts of carbon dioxide are not included in current estimates of carbon emissions from Amazonia. On the other hand, according to a computer model programme run by Centre Hadley for Climate Change and presented at the COP4, if the destruction of the Amazon forest continues at the present rate, vast areas of tropical forests are menaced of becoming deserts by the year 2050. This would mean -among many other things- the loss of the largest carbon reservoir in the world.

Forest fires are enhanced by the selective removal of trees, which allows the sun's rays to reach the forest soil and to create a dry and prone to fire environment. The Brazilian Institute for the Environment (IBAMA) recently revealed that logging companies have illegally extracted US$ 70 million worth of mahogany from the Kaiapo indigenous peoples' territory in southern Para province and it has also accused 16 local sawmills of theft and falsification of documentation. IBAMA has been carrying out a number of actions to curb illegal logging in the Amazon, which will probably be discontinued as a result of a 47.4% cut in the budget of the Ministry of the Environment. The Amazonian Working Group (Grupo de Trabalho Amazonico), composed by 355 Brazilian NGOs, has recently denounced a 90% reduction in the resources devoted to projects to be implemented in the Amazon and Mata Atlantica regions, and sent messages to the Parliament trying to stop the budget reductions proposed by the Federal Government.

The Brazilian government's international discourse on the importance of the Amazon forest in relation with climate change therefore seems to have little in common with what is actually happening in the real forest. (Bulletin November, 1998)

The Argentinian government is definitely aimed at transforming the country in an investors paradise for forestry projects, adopting the same scheme already operational in the Southern Cone of South America -Chile, Uruguay and Paraguay- based on large scale tree monocultures. This position was made clear at the COP IV on climate Change held in November 1998 in Buenos Aires. Plantations as carbon sinks under the Clean Development Mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol are regarded as an excellent opportunity for the development of this model. Environmental impacts on grasslands, that have already been proven in other regions in which the prairie is the major ecosystem, are ignored.

The new Forestry Law has increased the interest of foreign investors in undertaking forestry projects in Argentina, especially considering the tax exemptions offered and the resulting high profitabilty rates expected. Plantations are expanding especially in the Provinces of Misiones, Corrientes and Entre Rios, in the Eastern region. Significant areas are also being planted in southern Buenos Aires Province, as well as in Córdoba, Cuyo, Chaco and Patagonia, to the hands of American, New Zealand, Dutch and Chilean companies. The present rate of investments of U$S 1600 million a year is expected to increase with the new legal framework.

Manuel Climent, President of the Argentinian Forestry Association (Asociación Forestal Argentina - AFOA), has recently remarked the advantages that his country offers for the develoment of the sector: abundant available areas, adequate climate and soil conditions, and short rotation periods. He added that the international conditions are favourable since by 2010 a deficit of 900 million cubic metres of roundwood is expected at the global level. According to Daniel Maradei -Executive Director of the Advisory Committee for the Forestry Development Plan- some points are still pending, among them the adaptation of provincial legal frameworks to the national law.

According to its promoters, plantations do not only create wealth but are also good for the environment. That is why some entrepreneurs have got on the bandwagon of climate change issues. For example, Gustavo Kozak, representative of Forestal Andina SA, considers that plantations are a good instrument to combat the greenhouse effect.

The World Bank is -as elsewhere- a major actor in this plantation initiative. Total costs for the forestry development project are estimated at about US$26.2 million, U$S 10.6 of which will be financed by a Bank loan. According to the text of the "Argentina-Forestry Development Project" (ARPA6040), initiated in 1994, "Argentina's forest plantations have clear natural advantages compared with those in many countries... (a) the fast growth rates of trees in Argentina resulting from relatively rich soils and favourable temperatures and rainfall; and (b) an abundance of land with few alternative uses." Nevertheless, according to the Bank's view, "forest plantations in earlier decades were not developed in line with the potential, principally because of unfavorable macroeconomic, trade, and other policies." But nowadays "these policies have been adjusted appropriately, and the improved economic and policy environment encourages investment."

The World Bank's document mentions the Chilean case as an example to be followed: "The forestry sector in Argentina contributes just under 2 percent of GDP and had a positive trade balance of US$132.1 million in 1989. While it now contributes positively to the trade balance, this was achieved only by 1988. The contrast between the performance of the forestry sectors in Argentina and Chile could hardly be more striking. . . In comparing Argentina with Chile in particular, it becomes clear that a substantial gap exists in Argentina between the actual and potential levels of forest plantation production. . . Furthermore, much of the past growth in forest plantations in Argentina has not been efficient". Strange as it may seem, the expansion of the forestry sector seems to be related to the country's size: "While Argentina is about 3.7 times the size of Chile in area, and about 3 times its size in terms of GDP, Chile's exports of forest products, at about US$1.0 billion annually, are 4 times greater than Argentina's."

The Banks considers that the "proposed project would have no adverse environmental impact". On the contrary, "the small farmer component is specifically designed to have a positive impact on the environment". These conclusions are not only groundless but totally false. The forestry plan is not aimed at small farmers but at large transnational and national companies -following the Chilean model which the Bank seems to estimate so highly. However, vast evidence exists in Chile about the negative impacts which this forestry model is having on people and the environment. Not to speak about India, Thailand, Indonesia, South Africa, Brazil and so many other countries where local people are having to defend their rights against the spread of large-scale tree plantations. The Bank's reasons for supporting plantation development in Argentina are neither social nor environmental; they are strictly macroeconomic. It would seem that the Bank needs to be reminded that its mandate is to alleviate poverty and the Chilean case shows that this model has proven to increase the wealth of the wealthy and to increase the poverty of the poor, while at the same time having strong negative impacts on the environment. (Bulletin May, 1999)

The "environmentally concerned" French car producer Peugeot, decided to do something about the global warming effect of the millions of cars it produces. Of course, nothing as radical as switching to a different source of fuel. Instead, it decided to go the easy way: to plant "carbon sequestering" trees in the state of Mato Grosso in Brazil. The project began to be implemented last year, with the aim of converting 12,000 hectares of "degraded" pastures into plantations. According to Peugeot, the planted area would be able to remove 183,000 tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere every year. And very cheaply: for only US$12 million.

However, the results have been very expensive for the environment and for local people. A local subsidiary of the French NGO "Office Nations de Forets" began operations and caused what may have been the worst ecological crime ever committed in the state. Hundreds of animals -including species facing extinction- were found dead in one of the plantation areas. The reason: the use of 5,000 litres of the "inocuous" herbicide gliphosate (Round Up) in an area of 1,500 hectares being prepared for the plantation. The disaster also reached two rivers (the Juruena and Teles Pires) resulting in the widespread death of fish.

What's worse is that this has not been a mere accident. On the contrary, modern plantation technology strongly recommends the use of herbicides to eliminate competing vegetation -thus effectively eradicating much of the local plant biodiversity. The herbicide being extensively used all around the world for this purpose, on whose effects the company which produces it (Monsanto) has been lying for years, stating that it is less harmful than table salt, is precisely the one that caused this disaster.

The above is the result of bogus environmentalism: the implementation of an allegedly "environmentally-friendly" activity -planting trees- publicized as capable of sequestering carbon dioxide and thereby mitigating the greenhouse effect. In order to avoid the really difficult decision of abandoning the fossil fuel-dependent economy, part of the academic community has come up with these clever schemes and provided them with "scientific" support. Fortunately, another part of the academic community seems to be honestly trying to assert whether plantations are or are not capable of acting as carbon sinks. Their answer is no. (Bulletin November, 1999)

The issue of the environmental services that Southern countries can provide to Northern countries to mitigate the effects of global climate change is controversial. On the one hand there is the question of environmental justice at the global level, since those countries that are most responsible for the dangerous alteration of climate on Earth, instead of addressing the causes that are provoking it -for instance the unsustainable energy use and the huge emissions of CO2 by industry- are looking for doubtful and partial solutions, that can be bought for a low price in the South. Additionally, there is the question of who has got the right to participate in such kind of negotiations, as well as who will be the beneficiaries, and eventually who will be worst hit by them. The role of forests as carbon sinks and reservoirs is nowadays an important component of the discussions and negotiations that are taking place under the framework of the Kyoto Protocol.

There are recent news about an agreement reached in November 1999 between the government of Chubut Province, in the southern region of Argentina, and the German foundation Prima Klima. The aim of the project is to share the management of a natural area and to obtain funds by means of the certification of carbon fixation during a period of 50 years. The area of the project includes the La Plata and Fontana watersheds in the foothills of the Patagonic Andes.

The social and environmental impacts of tree monocultures in the Andean Páramos of Ecuador in a project carried out by the Dutch consortium FACE are analyzed in a thesis work for a PhD in Environmental Sciences of the Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona, Spain. The author -Verónica Vidal- worked during several months in that grasslands region of Ecuador, inhabited by indigenous peasants, and which is capital for the maintenance of the hydrological cycle and as well as hosting high levels of biodiversity.

The conclusions state that there is a lack of scientific evidence on the assumption that the increase in carbon dioxide volume in the atmosphere -the most important greenhouse effect gas- can be compensated by the creation of the so-called "carbon sink tree plantations." In the case of the Ecuadorian Paramos, the carbon uptake by FACE’s pine plantations has proved to be far below the expected figure. Moreover, the plantations can produce the effect of promoting the oxidation of the soil organic matter, which would mean further liberation of carbon to the atmosphere. According to estimates, the release of carbon to the air can be even higher than the carbon uptake of the growing trees, so that plantations would promote the increase of carbon atmospheric concentration, instead of reducing it. This imbalance, coupled with the negative effects of plantations on the economy of the indigenous communities that live at the Páramos, definitively show that plantations are not a solution to global warming, but a part of the problem. (Bulletin January, 2000)

Following an existing trend at the global level, oil companies in Argentina have enthusiastically embraced the idea of entering the carbon permits market, as an effective way to increase their profits and revamp their image to the eyes of public opinion: from the bad guys responsible for global warming to champions of forest conservation! Since 1998, the government has been making things easier for them by favouring investments in plantation projects, disregarding their impacts on the valuable grassland ecosystems that have been the natural and physical support of the country's economy.

According to Patricio Montecino, general manager of Pecom Forestal (a subsidiary of oil company Pérez Companc), "nowadays it is difficult to think of an oil company without an additional forestry component" both because -according to him- forestry is a good business, and because such companies are now conscious of the need to work on solutions based on carbon sequestration. Pecom is negotiating carbon emissions permits with the German companies that are involved in the polemic Chubut-Prima Klima agreement to sequester carbon in southern Chubut Province.

For Pérez Companc Company, carbon sinks are nowadays a core business. The company started to work in the forestry sector in the 1950s and at present owns 163,000 hectares of land in the provinces of Misiones and Corrientes and in the Paraná Delta region, much of which will be planted with trees. 15,000 additional hectares of pine plantations are to be set up in the next seven years in Misiones. The company's holdings in Corrientes are being planted to Pinus taeda and Pinus elliottii at a rate of 6,000 hectares per year, with the aim of obtaining raw material to feed an industry to be installed in the area in the near future.

Giant oil producer YPF (formerly State owned, now privatized and associated with Repsol of Spain) is supervising the plantation of 2,000 hectares with Pinus ponderosa in southern Neuquén Province by the Corporación Forestal Neuquina (CORFONE) and planning to reach 5,000 hectares by the year 2002. Of course Shell cannot be absent in this kind of initiatives: It owns 200,000 hectares in several countries (Congo, New Zealand, Chile, Uruguay, Argentina, Paraguay), being 120,000 hectares occupied by fast-growing trees plantations. In Argentina, Shell began to operate in 1998 and its plantations are located in Buenos Aires Province, where it owns 24,200 hectares, and in Corrientes Province, occupying an area of 8,000 hectares with eucalyptus and pines, to be extended to 18,000 hectares.

To create a "green image" for themselves is a very important goal of these companies' policy. Repsol-YPF boasts that its project is taking place in areas affected by erosion produced by overgrazing, and that they are not occupied by native forests, thus pretending to show its concern for environmental protection, in general, and for the reclamation of degradaded soils in particular. Shell emphasises that 2,000 hectares of native forests in its afforestation area will be left intact, and that the company aims to obtain certification according to the ISO 14001 norm so that the product can reach Northern markets. Nevertheless, such arguments are weak regarding a true conservation policy, since on the one hand it is well known that tree monocultures do not contribute to soil reclamation, and on the other hand, the effectiveness of small patches of native forest to conserve biodiversity in the midst of vast tree monocultures is very doubtful. Not to mention the poor performance of these companies regarding environmental protection. Not to mention that the real business of these companies -oil extraction- is devastating both the local and global environment. And not to mention that while "greening" their image they are increasingly appropriating vast areas of land throughout the world. (Bulletin June, 2000)

Although the Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Climate Change has not yet approved plantations and forests as carbon "offsets", the carbon shop is already very active. What follows is an e-mail message advertising Brazil as a place where cheap land and cheap labour is available for energy utilities to dump their carbon emissions:

"From: OMNITRADE <aaa@yawl.com.br>
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2000 2:25 AM
Subject: Greenhouse gas emissions - An alternative

Our company is located in Brasilia, capital city of the Republic of Brazil since 1978. Deals in the real estate business, acting as intermediary in rural properties as well as urban areas. Since the "Kyoto Protocol" in 1997, signed by many developed countries, there is an agreement that in the near feature there will be a reduction of pollutants to minimize the "greenhouse effect".

One of the options under consideration is the trade of emission credits with other nations. This may involve the reforestation of large areas or the deals involving existing forest like the negotiation that took place between electric utility industries and the Government of Costa Rica.

We understand that if the developed countries proceed with the negotiations in COP - 6 in Hague next November and they approve the set of international standards needed of how compliance issues will be resolved and what role of carbon sequestration activities (land use, land use change and forestry) in the Protocol, the demand for credits will surge.

We are able to submit competitive offers to energy utilities for reforesting projects (land at low prices, cheap labor and reasonably priced fertilizers).

We realize that the first option of the energy sector will be to invest in its own country or neighbors, but the alternative options in Brazil should be kept in mind as it could provide great savings compared to similar investments in other places.

Aside the sale of land and native forests, we can offer the option for lease or can act as intermediary on joint ventures for reforestation. The lease has the added advantage that is an excellent option for the cash flow of the company with the reforestation providing the necessary credits now and years later the benefit of the wood supply.

Our site is under construction (http://www.ecobiz.com.br). However, we have listed some properties of interest as well some information about environmental issues. It is to your advantage to take a look at them as you may find business opportunities of interest. If you need further information, have recommendations or suggestions, please e-mail at (contactus@ecobiz.com.br cc to omnitrade@hotmail.com).

Thank you in advance for your kind attention and hopping in the near future to do business to our mutual benefit, we remain Yours truly. Demetre Calimeris

Director OMNI Consultoria Imobiliaria Ltda SHIS
QL 08, CJ 02, Casa 10 71620-225 Brasilia D. F.
Brazil Phone: + 55 61 914 1234 or 911 1234
Fax: + 55 61 364 1905"

(Bulletin September, 2000)

Giant AUSTRALIA is a major actor in the geopolitics of Oceania. With its particular situation in the Southern hemisphere but being a Northern country and included in the Annex I countries, Australia is the only country that enjoys the possibility of increasing its greenhouse gas emissions by 8% above 1990 levels in the commitment period 2008 to 2012. Nevertheless, this country has enthusiastically embraced the idea of offering its territory for forestry-based carbon sink projects.

In November 1999 New South Wales (NSW) --one of the country's states-- established a legal right on carbon sequestered from plantations and signed an agreement with Japan's Tokyo Electric Power Co. (Tepco) --part of the Mitsubishi corporate empire-- to this regard. The Japanese are planning to start the project with the plantation of a 1,000 hectares in 2000, and to extend the site up to 40,000 hectares in the following ten years. It is to underscore that Tepco has been the first Japanese company to sign a memorandum of understanding with the World Bank to participate in the "Prototype Carbon Fund" system to trade in carbon offset projects.

Such initiative is not the only one in the push of NSW's authorities to enter this market. The Sydney Futures Exchange --also in association with State Forests of NSW-- is interested in creating an exchange-traded market for carbon credits as part of a plan to become a global emissions trading centre.

Also vast areas of the southern island of Tasmania in Australia are being planted with tree monocultures as "carbon sinks". The Federal Government's "Plantation 2020 Vision" programme is aimed at establishing 650,000 hectares of tree plantations in Tasmania over the next twenty years. The National Forestry Policy is even encouraging deforestation, ignoring the multiple environmental services of old growth forests, among which that of being a large carbon reservoir. Australian environmental groups are joining efforts with rural community representatives and local authorities to question and oppose this market-oriented vision, which is causing social disruption and environmental destruction.

While some people in Australia are looking at the possibility of doing business with climate change using the newly created carbon market, other states in the region are facing the dramatic situation and perspectives of global warming on their territories. Small island states of Oceania are under the peril of disappearing in case sea level continues to increase as a consequence of climate change. The Marshall Islands, for example, is in danger of losing 80% of the city of Majuro --its capital-- under this scenario, while the larger islands would also be greatly impacted due to concentration of their population and infrastructure along the coast lines.

These small island states have expressed their concern about the fact that the push for carbon sink projects will only serve to allow industrialized countries to continue business as usual while their own countries slowly sink in the ocean. As stressed by the delegate of Tuvalu, speaking on behalf of AOSIS in reference to carbon sinks projects: "This sends some very clear signals about the likely flow of funds for the Clean Development Mechanism, if sinks based activities are included. We are likely to see a flood of funding for sinks activities and a trickle of funding for technologies associated with renewable energy and energy efficiency."

While Australian carbon dealers' are trying to reap benefits from the climate change disaster, the small island states in the region are struggling for survival. Will the world's governments let them disappear? (Bulletin August, 2000)

Japan's Tokyo Electric Power Co. (Tepco) has recently signed a letter of intent to participate in a tree plantation project promoted by the state agency State Forests of New South Wales, Australia, allegedly as part of its efforts to tackle global warming. New South Wales established a legal right last November on carbon sequestered from plantations. State forestry bodies in Australia have been looking to market their projects as sinks in the newly created "carbon offsets market" by the Kyoto Protocol. Such initiative is not the only one in the push of Australia to enter this market. Sydney Futures Exchange -also in association with State Forests of New South Wales is interested in creating an exchange-traded market for carbon credits as part of a plan to become a global emissions trading centre. The company will look for investments coming from Australia itself, as well as from New Zealand and the USA.

Tepco and New South Wales State Forests are likely to conclude a formal agreement as soon as specific conditions are set. The Japanese are planning to start the project with the plantation of a 1,000 hectares next year, and to extend the site up to 40,000 hectares in the following ten years.

In June last year, Tepco signed a memorandum of understanding with the World Bank as the first Japanese entity to participate in the "Prototype Carbon Fund" system to trade in carbon offset projects.

This new move of the Japanese in the climate change field must be seen in a wider context. In fact, the Japanese cooperation agency JICA has been -and still is- very much involved in projects for the promotion of large-scale fast-growing tree monocultures to produce cheap fibre in several Southern countries. At the same time, the Japanese industry emits great quantities of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere while the Japanese economy consumes vast amounts of wood and wood products that result in the depletion of the world's forests, both of which add to the greenhouse effect. And now Tepco -which will surely be followed by other companies- is creating carbon garbage dumps through tree plantations ... not in its own country, of course. (Bulletin October, 1999)

The expansion of tree monocultures in Tasmania -which is paradoxically the centre of origin of Eucalyptus globulus, one of the most widely used species for establishing monocultures throughout the world- under the Clean Development Mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol is provoking widespread concern in Australia.

The Federal Government's "Plantation 2020 Vision" programme is aimed at establishing 650,000 hectares of tree plantations in Tasmania over the next twenty years. Federal and State governments in Australia have adopted a market-oriented viewpoint, according to which carbon can be sequestered in tree plantations that will be logged at a later stage for corporate profit. Not only does the National Forestry Policy promote vast tree monocultures, but it is also encouraging deforestation to give place to such plantations, with all the negative environmental impacts that this substitution implies both at the local and the global levels. The potential of old growth forests as reservoirs of large amounts of carbon are completely ignored. Instead, logging has intensified in several parts of the southern island of Tasmania, where native eucalyptus forests are being destroyed. At the same time, opposition to plantations is increasing, even under the form of radical actions such as arson and uprootings. Opposition to plantations has moved beyond the environmental sector and now includes a significant part of the rural community, particularly dairy farmers and local councils. For example, the "Communities Over Plantations" group, recently created in the north of the state, constitutes a pressure group basically composed of traditional rural community members. Dairy farmers oppose plantations because of the devaluation of properties adjoining tree plots and the social isolation caused by wall to wall plantations located in the middle of once-thriving rural communities. Additionally, county administrations have to deal with the loss of revenues from taxes resulting from the substitution of agricultural activities by tree plantations.

Major actors in this carbon sink plantation process are not even Australian companies. For example, the Tokyo Electric Power Corporation (TEPCO) -part of the Mitsubishi corporate empire- established a joint venture with North Ltd to establish over 23,000 hectares of tree farms on agricultural land. This is also the case in Victoria, where a US life insurance company, John Hancock, now owns 150,000 hectares of tree plantations.

The Australian NGO Native Forests Network is advocating for the adoption of more effective, realistic and non destructive practices to face the increase of carbon concentrations in the atmosphere. One of them is to stop the wasteful practice of clearfelling and burning native forests for low-value products such as woodchips. In addition to the massive amounts of carbon that are released through the initial logging of forests and subsequent so-called regeneration burning, woodchips themselves are converted into disposable commodities -such as paper- that are quickly destroyed, thus contributing to increased carbon emissions in a short space of time. A far better response to increased atmospheric carbon pollution is to maintain native forests standing in their respective sites, and promote the restoration of existing cleared or degraded forests. In the same line, the Australian Green Party has denounced that this is but a shortcut of the government to avoid addressing the necessary reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, while Greenpeace Australia considers that the Federal Government should be focusing on renewable energy and take action to cut emissions, rather than trying to reduce their effects. (Bulletin June, 2000)

While genetic engineering applied to food production is provoking concern among consumers and citizens and many scientists express their doubts and criticism in relation to it, big food, forestry and energy corporations are engaged in developing genetically modified trees, expected to be able to grow faster and to contain components desired by industry.

Last August the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) of New Zealand received through a specially created web site (www.context.co.nz ), up to 700 submissions on genetically engineered pine trees. This initiative of participatory democracy with regard to an important environmental issue is part of the evaluation process of the application made by the Forest Research Institute (FRI) to ERMA in order to make a field trial of genetically engineered pine trees in the open environment. It is important to highlight that until now this new system had never received more than 50 submissions, which clearly shows the public's concern over this issue.

Out of the 700 submissions, the vast majority were critical to the field trial. Mario Rautner, Greenpeace's campaigner on genetically engineered trees, expressed that the results clearly show that the public does not agree with the release of genetically engineered trees into the country's open environment. "We are calling on the FRI to accept the public opposition to this experiment. We would like to see the FRI applying the voluntary moratorium and halting this field trial now. Genetically engineered trees could pose a very serious threat to the environment and we oppose this unpredictable experiment with nature" he added. The question is whether the authorities will act according to the public's desires and definitively give up the field trial or if they will respond to the interest of industry.