Brazil: The Federal Police invade Tupiniquim and Guarani villages on land recovered from Aracruz Celulose plantations

The struggle of the Tupinikim and Gaurani indigenous peoples is now facing an extremely difficult situation. In February 2005, following their decision to take back their lands occupied by the eucalyptus plantations of the Aracruz Celulosa pulp company, over 100 indigenous families returned to settle in the rural areas from where they had been evicted, thus opening up the door to hopes of a sustainable and decent future (see WRM bulletins 94, 96 and 101).

However, today those hopes are being dashed. A communiqué sent by the Alert against the Green Desert Network (Red Alerta Contra el Desierto Verde) appears here below:

"Just like in the seventies, this morning (20/01/2006), in a violent and unilateral act, the Aracruz Celulose tractors destroyed two Tupinikim and Guarani indigenous villages in Espíritu Santo.”

With the support of the Tactic Operations Commando (COT) of President Lula’s Federal Government, brought in directly from the capital, Brasilia and aided by the State Police special task force from Paulo Hartung, Aracruz Celulose mowed down all they found in their way in indigenous villages of Córrego D’Ouro and Olho D’Água. The two villages were totally destroyed!

This was an authoritarian and unilateral act. Neither the Cacique Commission, nor regional FUNAL administration, nor the Public Ministry, nor the parliamentarians were aware of Aracruz Celulose’s police scheme. What puzzles everyone is that a lengthy negotiation was in process, involving all the actors in the conflict: the State, the company, the Indians, civil society. This negotiation had been on the agenda since the end of the previous year regarding a new resolution by the Ministry of Justice, confirming the anthropological studies carried out by FUNAL, recognizing the area as indigenous territory.

Demolishing all the on-going dialogue in the sphere of the State and civil society, the absurd provision of returning possession was issued by the Federal Judge, Rogério Moreira Alves, of the Jurisdiction of Linhares, dated 07/12/05.

In a war-like operation, shooting from land and from helicopters, dropping moral-effect bombs the Aracruz Celulose machines devastated their plots and food crops, and demolished their ritual cabins. The caciques and indigenous leaders who managed to reach the area and offered resistance were attacked by the police, some of the injured ended up in the Aracruz hospital (Seu João Mateus from the village of Comboios and Valdeir, from Pau Brasil, among others).

Some indigenous leaders are still being held in solitary confinement by the Federal Police (Paulo, a leader from Caieiras Velha and Nil, from Pau Brasil). The parliamentary advisor, Vanessa Vilarinho, who was present in the area that morning, lost her car that was destroyed by the police.

There are barriers preventing access to the area. Already in the morning two FUNAI officials were held and placed in solitary confinement in Aracruz Celulose’s “guest house.”

So far, this is all the information we have. The climate is very tense and a team of members of the Green Desert Network has travelled to the villages, although they have not made any contact to date. We are awaiting more information.

Olho d’água and Córrego do Ouro will arise again, always!

Those wishing to express their support to the Tupinikim and Guaraní indigenous peoples in their struggle against the eucalyptus plantations and in favour of the restoration of their lands may write to FASE-ES, e-mail: fasees@terra.com.br

---

top 

Brazil: Veracel fined for crimes against the environment in Bahia

At the end of December 2005, Ibama – Instituto Brasilero del Medio Ambiente y de los Recursos Naturales Renovables (the Brazilian Institute for the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources) - brought a lawsuit against the Veracel Celulose company. Using satellite imagery and geo-processing, it verified the pulp mill’s irregularities and fined it R$ 320.000 for preventing or hindering the natural regeneration of the Mata Atlântica forest over an area of 1,200 hectares and worsening the situation of this biome. This event has again exposed Veracel’s fraud and its discourse as protector of the Mata Atlântica.

For many years, NGOs from the Extreme South of Bahia have been denouncing and demanding that federal and state bodies responsible for the Environment - IBAMA and CRA - fulfil their commitments and investigate the various environmental irregularities committed by the Veracel Celulose company, an associate of the Brazilian company Aracruz and the Swedish-Finnish Stora Enso company with the plantation of eucalyptus trees.

Veracel Celulose - formerly Veracruz Florestal - is responsible for several environmental liabilities as can be seen from public civil action nº 93.01.1000399- of 5 April 1993, brought against it by various entities. Greenpeace, Camba – the Bahian Environmental Group and the Centre for Studies and Investigations for the Development of the Extreme South of Bahia (Centro de Estudos e Pesquisas para o Desenvolvimento do Extremo Sul da Bahia–, Cepedes) managed to film how the company destroyed areas of the Mata Atlântica, in medium and advanced levels of regeneration, using chains, tractors and wide-scale burning. All this is a breach of Article 1º of Decree 750 dated February 1993, which states: “Felling, exploitation and supression of primary vegetation or vegetation that is in advanced or medium levels of regeneration in the Mata Atlântica is prohibited.”

At its site on the Internet, the company advertises that some of the commitments of the enterprise are “respect for the environment, generation of employment and income, promotion of improvements in the population’s quality of life and profitability to its shareholders, following principles of sustainability.”

According to Ibama, the Mata Atlântica has 383 endangered species of fauna and of these, 125 run the risk of disappearing. In the Extreme South the situation is very serious because monoculture eucalyptus plantations are using vast tracts of flat land, leaving just a few islands of craggy areas as wildlife “refuges.” Many species do not live in or are not adapted to uneven areas and are therefore becoming locally extinct, particularly the endemic and rare species. To make matters worse, there is no connectivity between the islands of native vegetation, set in a sea of eucalyptus trees. Eucalyptus plantations do not represent an ecological corridor, because as we environmentalists, scientists, business people and government technicians, etc. know, the species do not cross or use eucalyptus plantations.

In the name of “development” of the region, the remaining biological heritage of the Mata Atlantica is being destroyed, causing indignation and protests from the organized civil society. The lack of consideration and greed of the promoters of this “development” model, government and entrepreneurs, foster crimes that attack nature and society, robbing future generations of the right to biodiversity, to scenic beauty and to a quality of life, in favour of a few groups and people getting wealthier. Periodically we have seen the Finnish Ambassador on Brazilian television stating that Finland is the country with the best quality of life in the world. However, groups from this country promote destruction and misery in the countries of the South through projects lacking transparency and respect that are imposed on the population.

Another issue of concern is related with the companies’ compliance with all the conditions. These conditions are prepared by the bodies granting permits for eucalyptus plantations and the construction of the pulp mills, after taking into account the various impacts caused by the enterprise. However, later the entities do not control these conditions as they should because, as they themselves admit, they do not have the technical capacity to ensure follow-up. In the knowledge of these government shortcomings, the companies take advantage of the situation and commit abuses.

The investigation carried out in the communities surrounding the Veracel factory, at the time it was built, enabled CEPEDES to discover that the company did not use the inhabitants of these communities’ labour at any time. The company, using financed money, including inputs from BNDES (Banco Nacional de Desarrollo Económico y Social) built housing in the neighbouring cities and districts, such as Itagimirim, Itapebi and Barrolandia and brought in workers from other regions of the country. Once the factory was built many returned to their region of origin and others stayed behind. This ends up by causing more unemployment, misery and violence.

This episode shows how the company’s environmental discourse is very different from its practice. We may affirm, on the basis of our experience over these almost fourteen years that the only true consideration on the part of the company is that which has to do with profitability for its shareholders as we have been able to verify through various declarations that their profits are increasing. The vice-president of Stora Enso, Magnus Diesen is already considering duplication of the model as a fait accompli and has declared that “a major step forward for the company would be a probable Veracel II. The additional capacity of the unit could somewhat exceed our present production, thanks to technological development. We would thus reach a little over double the volume we produce today.” This is a matter for concern as the Extreme South of Bahia can no longer support the vast monoculture eucalyptus plantations and that already existing problems are incalculable.

By Ivonete Gonçalves, CEPEDES – Centro de Estudos e Pesquisas para o Desenvolvimento do Extremo Sul/Bahia, e-mail: cepedes@cepedes.org.br

---

top 

Colombia: The slip-ups of the Forestry Bill in Colombia

Perhaps no other Bill in Colombia on environmental matters has given rise to such diverse opinions and to such commotion as the discussion in the Colombian Congress of the General Forestry Law adopted by this institution last December. The strength of the arguments and the response of Colombian environmentalism, social movements and even part of the mass media have been such that for the first time President Alvaro Uribe Velez returned a Bill to the Congress of the Republic.

The Bill was promoted under reasoning such as “how essential” are “conservation and sustainable management of natural forests in addition to the establishment of tree plantations,” for the development of the country, as the latter are a basic guide for the progress of the forest sector”. Furthermore, it was insisted that out of a potential 25 million hectares, some scant 150,000 have been afforested for commercial use, that is to say 0.006 per cent. The government has underscored that for this reason the Bill is of vital importance because the country’s vast forestry potential has not been harnessed. Perhaps these examples are sufficient to warn us, even in a minor way, on the forum where these arguments have been established. These phrases show that the defenders of the Bill are more concerned over trade aspects than over environmental conservation and protection.

Right from the start the arguments advanced by those defending the Forestry Bill have corresponded to commercial interests. They allege that the country’s forestry potential could be put to better use, thus improving monetary dividends and increasing employment. However, even in this context we can question whether the economic benefits that they are supposedly discussing are for the country, or on the contrary, whether there is a concealed interest in opening up the forests of Colombia for exploitation by multi-national companies. We already know who will benefit from the business with a bill intending to foster concessions with national and multi-national companies having the technical and extractive capacity to ensure modern and technically powered exploitation.

Furthermore, at this stage the question arises of whether the discussion regarding forestry matters can be subordinated to merely commercial reflections. That is to say, whether the context in which the debate on the Forestry Bill is set, can only be considered from a capital criterion. It would seem that this discussion should take place in a broader forum, where not only economic interests should be considered but ethical and existential ones too. This is an evident consequence when life has been understood as something sacred. However, during the process of the Bill’s debate in Congress, those defending it, among them the Government and in particular the Ministry of Environment, Housing and Land Development and the Ministry of Agriculture, rejected the opportunity to open up the debate and were content to systematically discredit their opponents.

The strategy of discrediting, during the debate on the Bill, took on various aspects, among them and perhaps the last, was by the Minister of Agriculture, consisting in affirming that the arguments of the opposition are merely a "Surrealist Mythology.” Perhaps we shall never fully understand the meaning (if it has one) of such an affirmation. Perhaps he only wanted to say that the reasons of the opposition have tried to materialise the encounter of reality with the world of dreams. The truth is that the clear and convincing arguments of the organizations which opposed the Bill were so many that the President of the Republic found himself obliged to return it to the Congress of the Republic with 11 articles of the Bill adopted by the National Congress objected to.

The fact is that there are many events that make this Bill illegitimate. In the first place the Afro-descendent, indigenous and peasant communities (who are the owners of over half the forests of the country) total lack of knowledge of this Bill. In spite of the constitutional right of Consultation that Afro-descendent and Indigenous Communities have, only a few fora were held, and the recommendations made were not considered. The Ministries of Agriculture and Environment alleged that, as these communities would not be affected negatively, it was not imperative to consult them.

The illegitimacy of the Bill can also be explained because the academic community, environmental organizations and sectors of civil society that work towards the protection of the environment were not allowed to take part either. Furthermore, the Congress of the Republic ignored the protests made by the Public Prosecutor and the Public Inspector.

In this way, step by step, the majority of the Congress ignored the voices of the people, the only voices capable of legitimizing any regulation. The Government has gone so far with this strategy that during the voting of the Bill in December 2005, the congress-people who opposed this Bill and who complained with a forceful voice time and time again, were never given the floor. Furthermore, a solicitude previously done requesting to vote article by article was given no attention. In this way Bill 264 was adopted, with 81 votes in favour, 11 against, channelling it to Presidential sectioning, where it has been annulled.

This brief report of the process, not only gives rise to serious doubts about the bill, but also about the strategies used to adopt it, leaving us with a bad feeling. In their attempt to discredit the opposition, they have completely ignored the others, showing their incapacity to create a broad forum for discussion, where not only economic and commercial criteria are considered, but also ethical and existential ones. It has been lamentable to see how this bill has been adopted. Some people who voted in favour admitted that they did not know what they were adopting nor were they able to define the meaning of the new concept “vuelo forestal” (which separates rights to land from rights to the forest cover), which is the hub of the project. This is evidently a “Surrealistic Mythology” concept as long as it separates the soil from the trees and other land elements; a separation of two elements as inseparable as the tree trunk and the soil that is its foundation, is only possible to understand in a dream. Perhaps here again we are only facing capitalist schizophrenia.

By Diego Andrés Martínez, Censat Agua Viva - Amigos de la Tierra Colombia, e-mail: bosques@censat.org, http://www.censat.org/

---

top