Ecuador:
A strange “dialogue” for the promotion of tree monocultures
In May 2003, we said
that “In nearly all countries, large-scale monoculture tree plantations
have been imposed and implemented once the laws of each country
have been changed in such a way as to enable national and foreign
companies to obtain all kinds of benefits, such as direct and
indirect subsidies, tax breaks and even soft loans and refunds
for large-scale plantations.” (See the article on Ecuador in WRM
Bulletin Nº 70.)
At that time, the
World Rainforest Movement witnessed firsthand the pressures exerted
on the government of Ecuador to adopt such measures. We participated
in a seminar/workshop organized by the Ecuadorian Ministry of
the Environment to formulate a “National Plan on Forestation and
Reforestation”. Because of the way the event was structured, however,
it ended up being monopolized by forestry companies, which led
the small number of Ecuadorian civil society, peasant and indigenous
organizations in attendance to issue a declaration expressing
their viewpoints. The declaration stressed, among other points,
that for peasant and indigenous communities, large-scale commercial
tree plantations, and especially monoculture plantations, are
not a development alternative; on the contrary, they cause such
problems as:
* The deforestation
of native forest areas to make way for the introduction of tree
plantations, which has been a regular practice in “reforestation”
projects.
* The decrease in
water resources as a result of the plantations already established,
particularly in the páramo highland region.
* Reduced soil fertility,
as the result of the replacement of native species and biodiversity
with monoculture plantations of alien tree species.
* The appropriation
of community lands through leases and mortgages, as in the case
of the communities that have signed their lands over to
forestry companies under
mortgages with terms of up to 99 years.
* The purchase of
vast areas of land by transnational corporations, as in the case
of Mitsubishi in Muisne.
* The loss of biodiversity
and changes in flora and fauna, a consequence seen in all tree
plantation projects.
* The increased risk
of fire, as in the case of Sig Sig.
* The reduction of
conservation areas, as in the case of Cotopaxi National Park.
More than three years
later, another twist of the screw is threatening to take Ecuador
one step closer to the adoption of legislation to promote large-scale
monoculture tree plantations. The Ministry of the Environment
is conducting a process it calls a National Dialogue on the Forest
Management System in Ecuador, which includes the organization
of five regional workshops and a national workshop, and is aimed
at implementing the new System as of this July. This process has
been harshly criticized by numerous Ecuadorian social and indigenous
organizations, who view it as a “dialogue” totally devoid of popular
participation. These groups joined together to send a letter to
the minister of the environment on June 9, in which they demand,
among other things, the immediate suspension of this process.
(The complete letter is available in Spanish at
http://www.wrm.org.uy/paises/Ecuador/CartaMAE.pdf)
The organizations
stress: “This process does not include important actors who are
directly affected by the destruction of forests, their grassroots
organizations and their national organizations. The regional dialogue,
held in the city of Esmeraldas illustrates the lack of participation
by citizens’ and community groups. The sector most widely represented
in these processes is the forestry
industry. This is a serious cause for concern, because its representatives
cannot serve as judges and parties in the discussion of an issue
as sensitive for the country as the control of deforestation.
This representation demonstrates that these meetings are aimed
more at formulating a forestry policy, expanding the area devoted
to tree plantations (deregulation) and increasing incentives for
plantations. This blatantly benefits the forestry companies and
does nothing to address the fundamental aspect of the process:
forest management control.”
“Adopting a forest
management policy, in our view, should involve the following aspects:
“1. The active participation
and consent of the communities affected, their grassroots organizations
and their national organizations.
“2. Conserving the
country’s last surviving primary forests, fully prohibiting their
exploitation, and enforcing compliance with the legislation that
protects Ecuador’s national forest heritage.
“3. Imposing a moratorium
on the logging industry until its social, environmental and economic
impacts on the country have been determined.
“4. Prohibiting the
expansion of tree plantations, particularly eucalyptus, pine and
oil palm plantations, which result in the loss of primary forests
and agricultural land, as well as in serious
impacts on water resources and the lives of local populations.”
The organizations
that signed the letter maintain that “the forestry
sector is attempting to establish a new forestry policy to suit
its own purposes, while completely disregarding the need for an
authentic forest management policy, which our country currently
lacks.”
On these grounds,
the organizations have withdrawn from the process and called on
the authorities to “convene a dialogue with genuine participation,
representation and consent, in which we can make decisions on
the management of our resources, and which does not create the
conditions for the usual power groups to continue destroying the
country’s natural heritage.”
It is still not too
late for Ecuador. This is why an international action was organized
to support Ecuadorian social and indigenous groups in their efforts
to prevent the adoption of legislation that would promote the
expansion of large-scale monoculture tree plantations
(see
at
http://www.wrm.org.uy/countries/Ecuador/ForestryLaw/index.html).
Around the world, those who understand that these plantations
only benefit large companies, while offering the local population
nothing but disastrous social, environmental and economic impacts,
have shown their solidarity by sending letters in support of the
Ecuadorian peoples’ efforts to stop this legislation, before it
really is too late.
