OUR
VIEWPOINT
-
When will the FAO stop calling fast wood plantations
“forests”?
The
United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has the
task of carrying out periodic assessments on the state of the
world’s forests. In order to do this, it has developed a number
of definitions one of which –obviously- is about what can be considered
to be a forest. This should have been a relatively easy mission
… were it not for the fact that the FAO decided to define plantations
–included those of alien species- as “planted forests”.
The
recently published State of the World’s Forests 2007 report includes
a box (8) with the heading “Planted forests in the continuum of
forest characteristics” (see note
1), where “productive plantations” are under the heading
“planted forests” and are defined as “Forest of introduced and/or
native species established through planting or seeding mainly
for production of wood or non-wood goods”. It is interesting to
note that in that box even “trees in urban environments” are included
in “the continuum of forest characteristics”!
From
the above it becomes clear that for the FAO any “productive tree
plantation (e.g. a fast-growth monoculture eucalyptus plantation)
is not only a “planted forest”, but pure and simply a “forest”.
This has very important consequences, because time and time again
the FAO assessment –due to such definition– hides the reality
of widespread deforestation, the equally important reality of
forest degradation and biological impoverishment of forests and
the negative impacts of eucalyptus, pine, acacia, teak, gmelina,
rubber and other alien tree plantations on people and the environment.
It
may perhaps be debatable if a plantation of a native species can
be considered to be a forest or not, but there can be no doubt
that a eucalyptus plantation in South Africa or in Brazil or a
pine plantation in Chile, or a rubberwood plantation in Cambodia,
or a gmelina plantation in Costa Rica, or a cryptomeria plantation
in India are not. However, the FAO not only defines them as “forests”,
but includes them as part of the world’s forest cover.
The
FAO needs to be made aware that this is not an issue to be discussed
within a closed circle of experts –as it has done until now– because
this unscientific definition has concrete negative consequences
on people and the environment. It is precisely these people –that
suffer the impacts of plantations– who are the real experts. They
have defined them as “green deserts”, “planted soldiers”, “green
cancer”, “dead forests”, and these definitions are much closer
to reality than calling them “planted forests” or “forests”.
This
issue about the FAO definition is not an idle academic exercise:
it is about people. It is about the way in which this definition
disempowers local communities fighting against large-scale monoculture
tree plantations –“productive forests” in the FAO terminology.
Governments, consultants, multilateral agencies, aid agencies
and –more importantly- large corporations use this concept of
“planted forests” as a means of hiding the impacts of these plantations
to the broader public. People in Finland are told that Metsa Botnia
is “planting forests” in Uruguay or that Stora Enso is “planting
forests” in Brazil and are in this way convinced that those companies
are doing something positive abroad. It would be much more difficult
to convince them that planting “green deserts” or “dead forests”
in southern countries is acceptable. But this is precisely what
they are doing.
The
fact is that these alien monoculture tree plantations are impacting
on forests, grasslands, soils, water resources, biodiversity and
people’s livelihoods and that the FAO is not only responsible
for concealing this in its assessments but for its continuing
support to the establishment of “forest plantations”. The only
doubt is whether the FAO realizes the social, environmental and
political implications that this has or whether it doesn’t.
Giving
the FAO the benefit of the doubt, we recommend it to open up a
dialogue on this issue with the more knowledgeable experts –the
people impacted by plantations– and with national and international
organizations that have been supporting them and documenting the
impacts. As an initial step in that direction, it should at least
be open to learn from organizations such as CIFOR (Center for
International Forestry Research), which in a 2003 publication
coined the term “fast wood plantations”. This is exactly what
they are and the way in which we would like the FAO to call them.
Is this too much to ask for?
(1)
Box 8 is available at: ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/009/a0773e/a0773e09.pdf
index
FOCUS
ON FAO
-
What FAO’s definition conceals
As
it does every two years, FAO has published its report “State of
the World’s Forests 2007” (http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/a0773e/a0773e00.htm),
where “progress towards sustainable forest management” is examined.
Although it admits, “Deforestation continues at an alarming rate
of about 13 million hectares a year,” the report’s overall conclusion
is that “progress is being made” and it
adds: “but it is very uneven.”
It
would seem that the serious state of forests today and of the
environment in general cannot be acknowledged: the mass deforestation
of mangroves to give way to shrimp farms; the vast stretches of
land granted in concession to agro-industry (for industrial tree
or crop plantations); mining; hydroelectric dams; industrial logging
– all these activities imply degradation and/or destruction of
forests with the consequent social and economic impacts on local
communities. Practically none of this appears in the FAO report.
Nor are the underlying causes of this destruction identified.
The
report states that some regions “especially those with developing
economies and tropical ecosystems continue to lose forest area,
while lacking adequate institutions to reverse this trend."
In the case of Africa it is stated that “the ability of institutions
to implement sustainable forest management is limited, owing largely
to the overall unfavourable social and economic situation.”
In
this respect, it is timely to quote what Assitou Ndinga of the
Democratic Republic of Congo said on the external factors affecting
the decisions of national forestry administrations: “Globalization
and the insertion of Central African countries in increasingly
dense networks of international links have
positive but also coercive effects that weaken their commitment
with the forest ecosystem cause. This is due to western hegemony
and to the culture of international relations sociology in the
western countries and to the African people’s scant feelings of
nationalism.” He also added that official western diplomacy “is
usually at the service of the forces which, in the past, caused
the weakening of the structures and impoverishment of the region;
forces whose primary concern is personal interest but that orchestrate
the power of their own State and international conventions” (see
WRM Bulletin Nº 107).
To
this lack of acknowledgement of the dimension of forest loss and
lack of delving more deeply into the causes of this loss is added
another shortfall: the definition including industrial tree plantations
as a forest subcategory, that of “planted forests.” This definition
contributes to legitimize the expansion of large-scale monoculture
tree plantations, concealing the poverty, social exclusion, and
environmental destruction it has left in numerous countries in
the South. FAO erroneously and confusedly addresses the concept
of forest cover, equalling it to forests and including in it plantations,
thus resulting in an underestimation of the degree of forest destruction
and in making the severity of the tree plantation problem invisible.
Furthermore, the data provided by FAO regarding tree plantations
conceal not only the nature of the problem and its true magnitude
– regarding the percentage of area occupied in the affected countries
– but also those responsible for it, the mechanisms for appropriation
of natural assets, and the impacts on people and the environment.
We
are not implying here that FAO is the only actor in the conversion
of vast stretches of ecosystems – grasslands, forests, paramos
– into “green deserts” of homogeneous tree plantations. It is
undeniable that the driving forces behind
expansion are fundamentally the major economic interests. And
among them, the world paper pulp industry seeking cheap raw material
to supply the North’s wasteful consumption. However, FAO has been
instrumental to the process in its capacity as “expert” agency,
actively participating in international processes (such as the
World Summit on Sustainable Development) and its guidance, promotion
and legitimization is being taken as a starting point at different
international fora and proceedings.
As
a way of showing the derivations arising from the definition of
tree plantations as forests, we will provide some comments on
the following sections of the report: Planted forests, Forest
tenure, Forest landscape restoration, and Forestry and poverty
reduction.
FAO’s
“planted forests”
The
section headed under the title of “Planted forests” (page 88)
shows a table identifying the 10 countries with largest area of
“planted forests” 2005, among which the United States, Russia,
Japan, Sweden, Poland, Finland together with Brazil, India, China
and Sudan.
Beyond
our absolute discrepancy with the outrageous idea that an ecosystem
can be “planted” the table is exceedingly misleading. FAO’s definition
of “planted forests” matches “forests with planted components”
– as would be the case of Finland or Sweden – with “plantations
for production” generally with exotic fast-growing species, defining
the large-scale monoculture tree plantations advancing on the
territories of the countries of the South and which remain invisible
in FAO’s statistics.
For
over 10 years now we have been carrying out a Campaign on this
issue, based on evidence provided by indigenous and peasant communities,
social and environmental organizations, academics, research workers
and affected persons and others who are sensitive to the issue.
We have hundreds of articles and books gathering complaints and
endeavouring to give a voice to those who are ignored and wrecked
by the corporation power.
Research
carried out in South Africa, Swaziland, Uganda, Uruguay, Brazil,
Chile, Ecuador, Cambodia, Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, and testimonials
gathered in these and other countries such as Malaysia, India,
Australia, Kenya, New Zealand, Argentina, Colombia, Venezuela,
Ghana and others report the serious past and continuing negative
impacts monoculture tree plantations cause in these countries.
However,
only two of the above-mentioned countries – Brazil and India –
appear on the FAO list, while in all the others tree
plantations are made invisible. The over 2 million hectares
in Chile, the 3 million hectares in Indonesia, the million and
a half hectares in South Africa, the 5 million hectares in Brazil
and the hundreds of thousands of hectares planted with trees in
dozens of countries in the South would seem not to exist. However,
they do and their negative impacts have already been documented.
At
the same time, the FAO table hides the
percentage of territory occupied by plantations in each country
or region and with it, the influence of their impacts. For example,
in the case of Swaziland, plantations occupy 8
percent of the national territory and are located on the best
land. The same happens in many countries, where certain states
or provinces contain very high percentages of their land given
over to such monoculture plantations (Kwazulunatal in South Africa,
Misiones in Argentina, Espirito Santo in Brazil, Chile’s Ninth
Region, etc.)
Forest
tenure
FAO
states in its report (page 80) “Public forest ownership remains
by far the predominant category in all regions.” Adding that “At
the global level, 84 percent of forest lands and 90 percent of
other wooded lands are publicly owned.”
A
figure is shown in this section, illustrating
the percentages for “forest ownership” in 19 countries of South
East Asia where it appears that 92% are public property – totalling
365 million hectares of forest – while industry appears with a
meagre 1%.
To
start off with, these figures conceal two things: that although
they are in public hands, many forests are destroyed by companies
enjoying concession rights for extractive activities – logging,
mining – and for the establishment of plantations and it is precisely
these concessions that give them rights implying that these forests
are in private hands.
This
is a situation occurring in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. In
Panama, the government has approved major concessions for the
development of mining industries in forests, causing prejudice
to the people living in them, such as in the case of copper and
gold mining in the Ngobe-Bugle and Kuna territories. In
2005, in the Democratic Republic of Congo, 103 timber companies
received concessions covering 14,752,600 hectares
of forests. In Gabon, most of the forests have already
been allocated to timber companies, while over half the territory
of Suriname is under concession, benefiting a handful of people.
Among these concessions are those granted for timber exploitation
and gold in tropical forests of vital importance to the Marune.
The forestry sector in the Central African Republic is dominated
by companies and capitals of French origin, intervening in the
exploitation of close on 3.2 million hectares of forests allocated
under concession. Concessions granted in the state of Kachin
in Burma – one of the last major areas of forest remaining intact
in continental Southeast Asia – enable a small elite to enrich
itself with the extraction of natural resources, logging and mining.
In Cambodia at the end of the nineties the government granted
over a million hectares of logging concessions – at the expense
of the local inhabitants’ lands and forests that have been their
means of livelihood for generations – and land concessions, many
of them to establish large-scale industrial tree plantations which,
according to FAO criteria, appear as forests.
Also
contained in these statistics of forests are the plantations in
Indonesia belonging to the Asia Pulp & Paper Company (APP),
involved in the pulp and paper industry. APP has been granted
two concessions for the plantation of trees for pulp in the provinces
of Riau and Jambi. The latter works with Acacia mangium as raw
material for pulp. So far, the area already converted or to be
converted into “Acacia land” by the company covers 500,000 hectares
in that province. In Riau, it is fast establishing plantations
to feed its pulp mills, turning forests into plantations and superimposing
them on community lands. APP also has another concession
in the south of Sumatra, covering 380,000 hectares. During the
seventies, the Indonesian government declared 140 million hectares
of land as State forests, ensuring State control over forests
traditionally managed by thousands of local communities.
As with concessions for industrial logging, the government grants
concessions to the pulp and paper industry without considering
who lives on the land or who has traditionally used the forest
(see WRM Bulletin N°101).
The plan is now to establish another five million hectares of
Acacia plantations for pulp.
Forest
landscape restoration
In
this section (page 76), FAO defines that “forest landscape restoration”
involves “practical approaches that do not try to re-establish
the pristine forests of the past” but to adopt other approaches
that “restore the functions of forests and trees and enhance their
contribution to sustainable livelihoods and land uses.”
To
illustrate this model, the page on this issue shows a photo with
the caption that serves to give a clear idea of the goal: “a mosaic
of planted forests for wood production and secondary naturally
regenerated forest for protection of valleys and waterways,” in
Bahia State, Brazil.
Between
1970 and 1985, Bahia lost 70 percent of its native forests with
the arrival of the pulp and paper companies Suzano-Bahia Sul,
Aracruz, CAF Santa Bárbara Ltda. and Veracel. Only 4 percent of
the original Mata Atlantica remains in the extreme south of Bahia
in reserve areas and over half the arable land is in the hands
of the companies. The eviction of rural workers, quilombolas (slave
descendents), indigenous peoples and small farmers has caused
an increase in the Favelas (shanty towns), the disintegration
of groups and families and violence and poverty.
This
destructive process is far removed from restoration. The euphemism
neglects the tragedy of the occupation
of territories in the South by powerful groups seeking favourable
conditions for their monoculture tree plantations – that is to
say, cheap labour and land and soil, water and climate conditions
favouring rapid growth of the exotic species introduced, while
leaving pollution and social conflict out of their own countries.
In
September 2006, a large group of “men, women and young people,
rural and urban workers, indigenous people, scientists, teachers
and students” from Bahia denounced the “situation of degradation
and poverty found in the region of the Extreme South of Bahia,
promoted by the Veracel pulp company, a Stora Enso joint venture.”
In their letter they affirmed that the company caused “approximately
400 [rural] workers” to lose their jobs. Most of these people
moved to the outskirts of neighbouring cities. Additionally “Throughout
the region, extensive eucalyptus plantation has promoted the disappearance
of several rivers and streams” (see WRM
Bulletin Nº 110).
For
these people these are neither figures nor statistics, but tragic
situations which affect their lives and their future.
Forestry
and poverty reduction
In
this section (page 78), FAO mentions the possible links between
national forestry programmes and poverty reduction strategies
and comments on the conclusions of various interviews with government
authorities. Once again, when referring to the contribution made
by “forest resources” to homes and the identification of opportunities
and obstacles for the contribution of the forestry sector to alleviate
poverty, the problem of industrial tree plantations is entirely
overlooked.
What
is understood by “forest resources”? If we are talking of the
forest and its products, much can be said about the contribution
they make to the communities that live or depend on them.
Food is found in forests, such as honey, fruit, seeds, nuts, roots,
tubers, insects, wild animals. They use the resin, rattan, bamboo,
tannin, colourants, leaves, straw, skins, and leather for self-consumption
or as a source of income when sold. The plants found there serve
as fodder and are of particular importance for the production
of cattle, sheep, goats, donkeys, and camels. To this should be
added the important contribution made by the forest ecosystem
to regulating the water cycle.
Here
again we return to the problem of what is concealed in the FAO
concept of equating plantations with forests. Behind this
euphemism is hidden the suffering of numerous peoples in Asia,
Latin America and Africa, where monoculture tree plantations are
destroying peasant farming, substituting the production of food,
preventing the necessary agrarian land reforms and devolution
and demarcation of indigenous lands, displacing communities from
their land and ecosystems and dismantling their culture.
Acacia
plantations are destroying the Belum and Temenggor forests in
Malaysia; in Cambodia, monoculture plantations of acacia, pine
and eucalyptus indiscriminately advance on the grasslands that
the local Phnong population use for grazing cattle and on ancestral
forests and graveyards that are an essential part of their culture.
In Indonesia, the introduction of tree plantations to supply the
pulp and paper industry has come into conflict with local populations’
boundaries and ownership, seen in the enormous number of “complaints”
and “claims.” In Ecuador, in 2006, young people from Muisne
carried out action against the Japanese company EUCAPACIFIC’s
tree plantations that are having a profound effect on the region,
depleting their water, flora and fauna that used to be abundant
and used by the local population and evicting the owners themselves
from the area. In Colombia this year the Permanent Tribunal of
the People – Colombian Chapter met to bring to trial transnational
companies focusing on the issue of biodiversity and exploitation
of natural resources in that country, accusing Smurfit Kapa –
Carton de Colombia among other things, “of violating human, environmental,
social and cultural rights.” “The destruction of tropical rainforests,
Andean forests and other ecosystems is destroying
the communities’ social weave, traditional and cultural means
of production, eliminating and contaminating water resources;
influencing government policy-making in the country and putting
pressure on State officials to favour the multinational’s interests.”
The
forestry companies arrive with great promises of employment, selling
the message that they “offer opportunities for employment, even
in the most remote areas of the country.” But research and testimonials
tell a very different story (see “Promises of employment and destruction
of labour”
http://www.wrm.org.uy/countries/Brazil/fase.html; WRM Bulletins
Nº 74 and 69).
Final employment figures are very far from those announced and
work in the plantations is usually seasonal, outsourced, poorly
paid and very often takes place under deplorable conditions.
We
could continue mentioning numerous more cases that we have heard
and denounced in our campaign against industrial tree plantations.
Unfortunately, they are many.
While
peoples and social movements appeal for food sovereignty, FAO
is walking along paths leading to the opposite
direction. It is high time for the organization
to address the underlying causes of deforestation. We would like
to see a report dealing in depth with the problems arising from
unequal land tenure, the lack of participative democracy, the
influence of the military and the exploitation of rural areas
by urban elites, excessive consumption in high-income countries,
uncontrolled industrialization – factors that are at the root
of forest destruction and degradation.
Likewise,
if FAO aspires to be the world agency contributing to shed light
on the state of the world’s forests with a view to their care
and preservation, it is also responsible for making visible the
urgent problem of the expansion of large-scale monoculture tree
plantations at the expense of territories, ecosystems and peoples
of the countries of the South. FAO is responsible for giving a
voice and an opportunity to these questionings and problems.
A
first step is to acknowledge that plantations are not forests
and to eliminate finally the unsustainable categorization of monoculture
tree plantations as forests.
index
COMMUNITIES
AND FORESTS
-
DRC: Threat to rainforests gain momentum
The
Congo rainforests of central Africa are, after the Amazon, the
second largest rainforest on Earth and a major biodiversity hotspot:
Two-thirds of the forest lies in the Democratic Republic of Congo
(DRC) -- still divided by a vicious civil war fuelled by competition
for control over natural resources, and that claimed 3.5 million
lives. About 40
million people of DRC depend on the rainforests
for their very survival.
However,
the World Bank -- by far the largest creditor to the DRC -- is
encouraging with its support the government plans of a massive
expansion of industrial logging. Those plans will unleash a wave
of destruction of DRC's rainforest which are now allocated to
the logging industry which is taking advantage of continued legal
uncertainty and a weak government.
The
rainforest is being sold off under the argument that it will alleviate
poverty in one of the poorest countries on Earth but it is tantamount
to a death sentence for the forest and forest dependent people.
The Twa, Mbuti and Aka 'Pygmies', and the Bantu people have lived
in the Congo's forests for thousands of years surviving by hunting
and gathering wild foods. They know how to protect the plants,
animals and ecosystems of the rainforest. But they don’t know
what big business has in store for them.
In
exchange for timber worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, logging
companies are giving communities gifts such as crates of beer
worth less than $100, and make promises to build schools and hospitals.
These promises rarely fulfilled and there are reports that intimidation
tactics are used against people who try to protest.
The
DRC Government introduced a moratorium in 2002 forbidding the
allocation, extension and renewal of logging titles. But despite
the original moratorium being reaffirmed by Presidential decree,
it has been widely ignored, including by the World Bank and other
credit institutions that support this plan.
More
than 150 contracts covering an area of rainforest of around 21
million hectares (over 51 million acres) have been signed with
20 companies over the past three years. Many are believed to have
been illegally allocated in 2002 by a transition government
emerging from a decade of civil wars and are in defiance of a
World Bank moratorium.
The
Rainforest Foundation has been warning for the last three years
that large-scale logging could spark massive environmental problems,
fuel conflict with people living in the forest, and spread corruption
as politicians, officials and warlords cash in on a ‘timber bonanza’.
Greenpeace recently joined the Rainforest Foundation’s Stop the
Carve-Up of the Congo campaign and released a 100-page study. Compiled
by Greenpeace International working with Congolese ecological
and human rights groups “Carving Up the Congo” reports that the
companies are mainly from Germany, Portugal, Belgium, Singapore
and the US, and they will extract African teak which is widely
used for flooring, furniture and doors in Britain.
To
gain access to the forests for the next 25 years, the European
companies have made agreements with village chiefs, offering
bags of salt, machetes and bicycles, and in some cases promised
to build rudimentary schools, the report states.
International
groups called for at least a 10-year freeze on the allocation
of new areas for timber cutting in the Congo. The Rainforest Foundation
is calling now for a G-8 declaration on the importance of the
Congo rainforests and the role they play in combating climate
change. “We will keep up the momentum at the G-8 meeting of the
most wealthy nations in June to maintain the focus on the world’s
last great rainforest frontier,” said Simon Counsell, from The
Rainforest Foundation.
Article
based on: “Plight of Congo forests grabs world attention”, The
Rainforest Foundation,
http://www.rainforestfoundationuk.org/s-Plight%20o
f%20Congo%20forests%20grabs%20world%20attention; “Rainforest
destruction in Africa”, Greenpeace,
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/congo-report-110407;
“Selling off the rainforest - a modern-day scandal”, John Vidal
in Kisangani, April 11, 2007, The Guardian; “Report From The Congo
Rainforest”, Cath Long, The Rainforest Foundation,
http://www.rainforestfoundationuk.org/s-Report%20from%20the%20Congo%20Rainforest
index
-
Paraguay: Ayoreo-Totobiegosode endangered
by a cattle ranching company
Between
1959 and 1987, a great majority of the Ayoreo from Paraguay (see
WRM Bulletin No. 96) were contacted
by force and deported to places outside their vast ancestral territories.
They were also displaced from their lands taken over for farming
activities. This situation has submitted them to a high degree
of dependency on the religious missions and the regional market.
At
present, there are more than 2000 members of the Ayoreo ethnic
group who live sedentarily in 13 settlements – ten communities
in Bolivia and 3 in Paraguay. All these settlements are located
outside their traditional habitat. Their culture is increasingly
influenced and hindered by the model of modern life, which has
barely left them a marginal space, insufficient to discern and
to reshape their path towards the future.
There
is only one local group, the Totobiegosode, still living in the
forest, without contact with other Ayoreos or foreigners, in an
area known as Amotocodie in the North of the Paraguayan Chaco.
They live nomadically, hunting, gathering fruit and honey, fishing
and cultivating small plots which they plant “on the go,” during
the rainy season. They constitute, with their habitat –
high and low forests, palm groves, open fields, dry riverbeds,
streams, and lagoons – an inseparable unit and live communally.
Although no one has any direct contact with them, their existence
can be felt and verified by signs of presence such as footprints
and holes in trees that show that they have been harvesting honey.
In some cases, they have even been seen in the distance.
Most
of the territory inhabited by groups in voluntary isolation is
in the hands of private owners: Paraguayans and foreigners, large-scale
farmers and investors, individuals and companies. Less than
10% of the territory corresponds to Parks or National Protected
Areas. The clearcutting of primary forests to install cattle
ranches substantially depleted territories inhabited by the indigenous
groups, cutting them off in isolated patches, divided by belts
with no forest cover and increasingly busy roads. The forest groups
can no longer travel along their annual migratory routes and access
parts of the habitat that are vital for their life and survival.
The
accelerated expansion of the frontiers of western civilization
in the North of the Paraguayan Chaco is a threat both to the Ayoreo
groups in voluntary isolation and to the still vast forests with
which they co-exist.
At
present, they are facing a serious and imminent danger. The Paraguayan
organization, Iniciativa Amotocodie – which is endeavouring to
accompany uncontacted groups from “outside” and from a distance
– has denounced that a company called Ganadera UMBU S.A. purchased
40,000 hectares of pristine forests in the centre of Amotocodie.
Of these, 24,000 hectares will be deforested to install cattle
ranches. They already have the corresponding permits and work
could start at any time now. With clearcutting, it is highly probable
that there will be contact with groups in isolation. This seriously
violates human rights and the life of these groups that have always
lived there. – Furthermore, according to the warning by
Iniciativa Amotocodie, this could lead to a bloodbath, as has
already happened on other occasions.
Iniciativa
Amotocodie has taken all the pertinent legal measures, but has
not managed to halt the clearcutting project so far. For their
part, the Ayoreo, through UNAP (the Union of Paraguayan Native
Ayoreo), have put pressure on the authorities and have made this
serious situation public.
A
campaign has been organized to try to halt what the Ayoreo define
as an “attack” against the life of their people in the forest
and the future of their people. Iniciativa Amotocodie’s web page
contains an invitation to send a letter to the appropriate Paraguayan
authorities. To make it easier, the letter has already been drafted
(in English: http://www.iniciativa-amotocodie.org/actual/files/letter_grave_amenaza.pdf)
and all that has to be done is to return it to the names and addresses
that appear at the foot of the letter.
The
Ayoreo are determined to fight for the integrity of their brothers
and sisters in the forest and for the ancestral territory of the
Ayoreo People, looking towards a future where restoration of what
is theirs - both lost territories and their model of ancestral
life - has started to take on a meaning. The groups in voluntary
isolation give testimony of a paradigm of a relationship with
nature that used to be practiced by all the indigenous peoples,
but which they have had to abandon. This paradigm serves as a
vital reflection on the history of these ethnic groups and as
a source of inspiration in the search for alternatives for survival
and for the future.
Article
based on: “Grave Amenaza en Amotocodie”, Iniciativa Amotocodie,
http://www.iniciativa-amotocodie.org/actual/20070425_graveamenaza.html;
information sent by Guadalupe Rodríguez, Rettet den Regenwald
(Salva la Selva Tropical), e-mail: guadalupe@regenwald.org,
http://www.regenwald.org/international/spanisch/;
Atlas de las Comunidades Indígenas en el Paraguay, ttp://www.dgeec.gov.py/Publicaciones/Biblioteca/
Web%20Atlas%20Indigena/171%20Plantilla%20Ayoreo%20toto.pdf
index
-
Malaysia: Nomadic and semi-nomadic Penan
communities intensify campaign against Samling Group
Intense
and continuing logging has taken place in Sarawak for the last
30 years or so. More than 95% of Sarawak's original forest cover
has now been logged at least once. The few remaining portions
of unprotected primary forest in Sarawak are in mountainous regions
close to the border with Indonesia, and these are now being hastily
logged by the five leading logging groups active in Sarawak and
their myriad of subsidiaries and associated contractors.
The
forestry ministry of the State of Sarawak speaks of sustainable
harvesting of the forests on a 25 year cycle and allocation of
vast tracts of land for palm and cash crop cultivation. However,
the net result is, as most biologists agree, destruction of the
delicate 100 million year old forest ecosystem with the disappearance
of the canopy. A secondary effect now evident all over the country
is an almost universal pollution of fresh water rivers and streams
with silt which has severely impacted both the inland and marine
fishing sectors.
No
less critical is the plight of Sarawak's forest indigenous people
who rely on the forest for sustenance. There remain 200 or so
nomadic Penans and their future looks dire in terms of their ability
to continue in the manner they have been accustomed to for hundreds
of years. Many of the remaining Penans are locked in a state of
constant confrontation with the logging industry and the local
government for preservation of their remaining forest lands. While
numerous land-rights cases are passing slowly through the legal
system, the logging continues, with the local people being no
match for the well funded and connected logging concession holders
and their contractors.
The
Samling Group holds 1.4 million hectares in the Malaysian state
of Sarawak. On the recent occasion of its public listing at the
Hong Kong stock exchange, 37 organizations from 18 countries asked
investors and banks to shun the company for its failure to comply
with basic environmental and social standards.
Samling
has already logged large areas of primary tropical forests in
the Upper Limbang river area, close to the Batu Lawi, a mountain
which the Penan consider to be holy.
Four
nomadic and semi-nomadic Penan communities living on the Limbang
river in the North of the state of Sarawak launched a joint appeal
to the international public. The communities of Long Nyakit, Long
Peresek, Long Adang and Long Keneng urge Credit Suisse, HSBC and
Macquarie Securities, the three banks who have sponsored Samling´s
recent public listing, to stop supporting the timber giant.
"Samling
is destroying our last remaining rainforest in the Upper Limbang",
headman Awing Tubai said on behalf of the Penan communities. "We
need clean water for drinking and fishing and intact forests where
we can gather our food and other forest products."
Article
based on: “Rainforest communities step up campaign against Samling”,
Bruno Manser Fonds, www.bmf.ch;
“The Final Chapter for Sarawak's Primary Forests”,
www.ForestAlert.org,
http://forestalert.org/forest.php?lang=en&news_id=5
index
COMMUNITIES AND TREE
MONOCULTURES
-
Brazil: The hushed issue of water in Aracruz
Celulose business
The
huge Aracruz Celulose high-tech pulp and paper complex located
in Barra do Riacho in the Southeast region of Brazil has led to
major conflicts since the company’s encroachment upon land belonging
to the Tupinikim and Guarani indigenous peoples. However, not
only land but also water is being taken over by the company’s
mill and large-scale monoculture tree plantations which spread
along more than 175,000 hectares in the north of the State of
Espirito Santo and the Southernmost part of the Bahia State.
Aracruz
hushes when it comes to water issues, notes the recently
published report “H2O para Celulose
x água para todas as línguas” carried out by FASE Espíritu Santo.
Its authors reveal that from the company’s annual reports, web
page, magazines, and publications just incomplete or fragmented
information can be gathered, with no evidence of a clear water
policy for the whole complex including mills, tree nurseries,
tree plantations, port and infrastructure.
What
is the role of the water in the whole industrial process of Aracruz
Celulose? To whom does the water belong, from whom is it seized
and in what conditions is it returned to the environment? By which
means does the company take hold of and use the water? In what
quantities? How much does it pay for it? Those are unanswered
questions on the part of Aracruz Celulose.
Water
is one of the primary materials used in the whole process of cellulose
production; it is consumed in several sectors and moments of the
pulp productive process --like digesting, bleaching, and mainly
to feed boilers. After being used in the industrial process the
water returns back as an effluent carrying along wastes and pollutants.
The
long record of testimonies from neighbouring Guarani, Tupinikim,
Quilombola, and peasant communities evidence the disappearance
of several streams and ponds as well as the great difference in
the level of rivers and streams since the arrival of the eucalyptus
plantations. This is because eucalyptus requires high levels of
water, from the moment that it is planted as well as during its
growth and also because the cutting cycle has been shortened.
Heavy machinery used to cut and pile up timber has further impacts
on the water problem since the heaviness of the machines compresses
the soil thus hampering rainwater absorption and contributing
to water runoff. The residents of the region testify that what
little remained of the water reserves, has been taken for eucalyptus
irrigation by the companies contracted by Aracruz Cellulose.
The
right to water has been completely violated by Aracruz. The waters
of the Doce River have been diverted after a suspicious licensing
process and most of the 14 streams that crossed between the town
of Itaúnas and the headquarters of the company in the village
of Conceição da Barra are now dead, which has greatly affected
the quality of life of local population. Many houses now get their
water from makeshift wells that have been recently dug. Given
the poor quality of this water, the sale of water has now become
big business for commercial establishments in the area.
The
water problem along the homogeneous tree plantations is not only
quantitative but also qualitative. The intensive use of agrotoxic
substances and chemical fertilizers pollutes the water resources
of neighbouring communities. The rivers that cross their territories
are no longer safe to drink, or even to bathe
in, and few people still fish.
Ten
thousand families lived in the area before Aracruz arrived. Now,
just 1.500 people stay, strive for their survival and resist the
neoslavery imposed by the company by several ways: separating
families and pushing them out of the land, isolating them, depriving
them of their food sovereignty and their culture which is directly
linked to the forest, sacrificing family agriculture, suppressing
gatherers and fishers with its private armed police. Once abundant,
now the water is scarce and the communities compete with the army
of eucalyptus of Aracruz Celulose for every drop.
The
daily water consumption of the company to provide for its cellulose
production capacity of 2,000,000 tons/year is enough to supply
a city with a population of two and a half million, and the company
pays nothing for it. Aracruz’s private port, Portocel, is the
point of departure for most of its production which goes to Europe,
North America, and Asia. The pulp will be used in the production
of sanitary napkins, paper used in surgical procedures, paper
bed sheets, specialized papers for writing and printing, serving
the high -- and unsustainable --demands of First World consumption
patterns. In the North remain the best employments, the highest
added value, and the least environmental risks. In the South remain
the “green deserts” of eucalyptus plantations, a few exclusive
employments and some meager more, scant taxes and several environmental
conflicts.
The
misappropriation and use of river watersheds for pulp production
and eucalyptus monoculture are distinct traits of environmental
racism, concludes the study. Also the distribution of water in
the State of Espirito Santo reveals a clear environmental injustice:
abundant and free for Aracruz Celulose; scarce, payed and contaminated
for indigenous people, quilombolas, landless people, peasants
and fishers.
The
hushed problem has been voiced as well as the claim for several
measures to be adopted among which the first one is to stop immediately
the expansion of industrial eucalyptus plantations.
Article
based on: “H2O para Celulose x água para
todas as línguas”, Daniela Meirelles and Marcello Calazans, FASE,
2006, e-mail: fasees@terra.com.br,
http://www.fase.org.br/noar/anexos/acervo/12_h2o.pdf; “Economic,
Social, Cultural and Environmental Rights Violations in Eucalyptus
Monoculture: Aracruz Cellulose and the State of Espírito Santo”,
FASE,
http://www2.fase.org.br/downloads/2004/09/553_relat_desc_es_ing.pdf
index
-
Spain: FSC’s certificate to NORFOR or the
continuation of a fraud
On
last April 9, the Galician organization APDR (Asociación pola
defensa da Ría) issued an official statement regarding the FSC
certification of the NORFOR company, a subsidiary branch of the
Spanish pulp and paper company ENCE, which had been certified
in April 2005.
In
the statement, APDR denounces that “In Galicia, we have been suffering
for many years the consequences of the dreadful influence of the
company ENCE in our natural environment and in our economy."
APDR refers to the monoculture and trading of eucalyptus wood
for the manufacturing of pulp which “has caused the impoverishment
and abandonment of rural communities, abandonment of forestry
lands”. The communiqué enumerates other impacts of industrial
timber plantations, such as “high risk of fire”, “intense erosion
of lands”, “the loss of biological diversity and the destruction
of resources” and the pollution of “streams and underground
aquifers” by the use of “large volumes of pesticides”, as well
as the “loss of quality of the landscape of the areas occupied
by their activities”.
In
spite of all that, the company obtained the certificate of the
FSC through the certifier SGS (Societé Générale de Surveillance),
a Swiss inspection, verification, testing
and certification company which in 1997 had been suspended from
certification activities by the FSC for six months, due to controversy
arising over the certification of a logging operation undertaken
by the forestry company Leroy in the forests of Gabon.
From
the beginning APDR denounced the problem to the FSC delegation
in Spain, elaborating a detailed 85-page report (http://www.apdr.info/norfor/norbarpr.htm).
Last year, APDR together with organizations from other seven countries
requested that, “in accordance with the objective of the FSC to
‘promote the environmentally appropriate, socially beneficial
and economically viable of the world’s forests’ the certification
of NORFOR is cancelled forthwith” (see
http://www.wrm.org.uy/actors/FSC/Campaign_De_Certification/Spain.html).
Now,
APDR statement says that the recent report
published on February 5, 2007, by SGS regarding the second assessment
audit of the certification under FSC standards of the forest company
NORFOR “was full of falsehoods, manipulation of the information,
misrepresentation of the facts and concealment of the reality.
But now the problem is not the intention of defrauding which the
company has held from the beginning of the certification process.
The problem is that FSC, fully aware of the fraud, has decided
to continue with this certification in spite of the increasingly
crushing evidence of nonfulfillment of the standards; thus, FSC
takes another backward step by moving further away from the aims
with which it was created.”
The
communiqué regrets that: “In Galicia, the worst management system,
which favours erosion, the loss of biodiversity and the disappearance
of forest uses and resources, has the FSC certificate. More than
two years after the certificate was issued, NORFOR´s forest management
system has not been modified and the maintenance of the certificate
is based on deceit and concealment of reality on the part of the
certification body, SGS, and the complicity of FSC, which, almost
two years after APDR lodged a formal complaint by bringing forward
clear and easily contrastable evidence of nonfulfillment of the
standards, continues to strive to maintain the certificate at
any price. FSC is demonstrating, in the certification of NORFOR,
that their real primary objective is to protect a flourishing
business rather than ‘guarantee the authenticity of its certifications’
and ‘promote a forest management system which is responsible,
beneficial to society and financially viable’”.
APDR
warns that the certificate is “a document which gives enterprises
access to important public subsidies granted by states and international
organisms”, it “allows the enterprise to improve its position
in a market where the certification is granted a value and a prestige
which, as the falsified certifications proliferate, it is losing.
It is only the economic value of the benefits which forestry enterprises
obtain from the acquisition of the certificate which makes the
companies seek them and FSC maintain them at any price, not taking
into account the nonfulfillment of the standards.”
It’s
high time people become aware that “being in possession of the
certification does not necessarily mean that the holder's forest
management is responsible, beneficial to society and financially
viable.”
Article
based on “Official Statement of APDR (Asociación Pola Defensa
Da Ría) Regarding the FSC Certification of NORFOR”,
http://www.wrm.org.uy/countries/Spain/APDR.pdf, April 9, 2007,
sent by APDR, e-mail: apdr@apdr.info,
www.apdr.info
index
-
Swaziland: Large-scale tree plantations
which are no exception to the rule
The
case study “Swaziland: The myth of sustainable timber plantations”
carried out by Wally Menne and Ricardo Carrere and published in
March 2007, aims at unveiling the myth of sustainable plantations
in Swaziland and showing that large-scale monoculture tree plantations
in this country have similar negative impacts as elsewhere and
are no exception to the rule.
Before
the implementation of large-scale timber plantations in Swaziland,
the area that they now occupy was grassland, interspersed with
patches of evergreen forest growing in moist, sheltered spots.
Domestic crops and animals, hunting, and natural resources from
the forest and grassland provided Swazi people all they needed
to survive.
Things
began to change in the 1870s when Europeans flocked to Swaziland
and through different means obtained rights to settle on vast
portions of the country. In 1899 the Anglo-Boer war broke out
and in 1902 the British took control of Swaziland. The country
remained under British colonial rule until September 1968 when
Swaziland gained independence.
Many
of the timber plantations were established during colonial rule
but their continued existence is today a means of “freezing” the
unjust distribution of land ordered by the British imperial rulers.
At present industrial tree plantations cover an estimated total
area of almost 135,000 hectares (8% of the total land area). Even
worse, they occupy the land with the most productive potential,
at the expense of other agricultural land uses. Most plantations
(78%) are composed of pines trees, while an important area has
been planted with eucalyptus (20%) and a smaller area with wattles
(2%). Additionally, there are some 25,000 hectares of so-called
“wattle forests”, which are areas invaded by alien acacias (The
Swaziland Environment Action Plan, 1997).
Clearly
not all of Swaziland's woes can be blamed on industrial tree plantations.
But more than fifty years of development by the pulp and paper
industry has failed to bring benefits to the majority of Swaziland's
population. Instead it has made matters worse.
The
most obvious impact is the destruction of natural vegetation when
large-scale plantations are first established but also fragmentation
of highveld grassland has been identified as a problem, with negative
implications for the conservation of biodiversity.
Timber
plantations have impacted directly on soils causing soil erosion,
nutrient depletion, changes in soil structure, and acidification
that have yet to be studied in Swaziland. Also on water: the areas
covered by industrial timber plantations
in Swaziland are already deprived of water. They consume more
than the natural rainfall supply to the area that they occupy,
even drawing additional water from surrounding aquifers and streams. The
extent to which plantations impact on water resources has
had serious consequences for people relying on water from streams
and rivers flowing from the highveld catchment area. Some people,
born in the area before plantations arrived, can remember waterfalls
and deep streams that no longer exist.
Indirect
impacts are related to the appropriation of the best land by plantation
companies. In a country where the majority of people are landless,
nearly 120,000 hectares of the most productive land in the country
(the ‘High Veld’ region in the West) is occupied by timber plantations
owned by foreign corporations. As a result, traditional agriculture
and cattle grazing were displaced onto drier, steeper areas where
shallow soils have higher erosion potential and less capacity
for water and nutrient retention. A relatively larger number of
people now need to subsist off a smaller area of less arable and
productive land. These factors result in downstream impacts such
as more severe flooding, soil erosion, soil nutrient depletion,
and siltation of streams and wetlands, with consequent food shortages
and impacts on health.
Today,
two South African pulp and paper companies control most of the
industrial tree plantations in Swaziland. Mondi owns 30,000 hectares
of eucalyptus and pine trees in the north of the country, while
Sappi, leases 70,000 hectares of plantation land in western Swaziland.
Mondi exports it eucalyptus wood to its pulp mill at Richards
Bay, 400 kilometres away in South Africa. The pine goes to local
sawmills. Sappi owns a pulp mill which produces 220,000 tons of
pulp each year, most of which is exported to Southeast Asia.
Employment
offered by the timber industry is often far more hazardous than
conventional agricultural jobs including danger of injury to workers,
and exposure to toxic chemicals and dangerous machinery in pulp
and saw mills, while the recent trend of outsourcing as a means
of increasing profitability and reducing the risk of labour action
resulted in even lower wages and worse working conditions.
Air
and water pollution from pulp mills, is often the subject of complaints
by communities. Although the levels of pollution produced by sawmills
are less obvious, the cumulative effect of the use of toxic wood
preservatives in an area can be considerable. The disposal of
waste materials into nearby streams appears to be a common practice
which can have negative implications for aquatic organisms and
human communities.
The
tree species commonly used in plantations are all highly invasive.
For many years, the timber industry has allowed their trees (acacia,
pine and eucalyptus) to spread into watercourses, wetlands and
steep inaccessible areas. This results in the displacement of
natural species mostly through shading or suffocation, and further
destruction of habitat through ongoing impacts such as the dehydration
of streams and wetland areas.
Large-scale
tree plantations in Swaziland have resulted in serious impacts
on people and the environment, both at present and in the past.
It is difficult to understand how two of them have been certified
by the Forest Stewardship Council: Mondi (20,000 hectares) and
Shiselweni Forestry Company (17,000 hectares). According to its
mandate, “the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) shall promote environmentally
appropriate, socially beneficial, and economically viable management
of the world's forests”. Apart from the fact that these plantations
are obviously not forests, the findings of the research have revealed
that they are neither environmentally appropriate nor socially
beneficial and that their economic viability depends on the externalization
of social and environmental costs.
Large-scale
monoculture tree plantations in Swaziland have similar negative
impacts as elsewhere and are no exception to the rule.
Excerpted and adapted
from: "Swaziland: The myth of sustainable timber plantations",
by Wally Menne and Ricardo Carrere, WRM,
http://www.wrm.org.uy/countries/Swaziland/Book_Swaziland.pdf)
index
CARBON TRADE
-
How credible is carbon compensation?
Eindhoven
Airport in the Netherlands has claimed to be the first airport
in Europe where passengers as of May 2007 can compensate emissions
from their flight by donating for tree plantation projects. Last
week however, activist groups in London have criticized this kind
of carbon offsetting. So how credible is carbon compensation?
Eindhoven
Airport cooperates with the firm GreenSeat that calculates and
cashes the compensation fees and with the FACE Foundation which
runs tree planting projects. They are not the only ones that compensate
emissions. The Carbon Neutral Company - target of the British
climate activist group last week - Climate Care and Offset My
Life share the same growing market. In 2006, the carbon offset
market tripled in comparison with the previous year and it is
expected to be worth 450 million Euros in three years time.
However,
according to the organization Carbon Trade Watch (CTW), part of
the Amsterdam based Transnational Institute, carbon offsetting
is nothing more than a modern form of indulgences - the sin taxing
system invented by the Catholic Church in the late Middle Ages.
"The modern-day Pardoners are building up what they claim
are good climate deeds through projects which supposedly reduce
or avoid greenhouse gas emissions," the CTW-organization
writes in the recent report The Carbon Neutral Myth.
Author
Kevin Smith argues that it is impossible to assess just how much
CO2 is taken up by trees. For a start, there is a distinction
between the locked-up fossil carbon and the carbon which is part
of the living carbon-cycle. You can easily convert locked-up carbon
to active carbon -we do it all the time by burning fossil fuels
- but you can't put it back. Once active, carbon might be fixed
in a tree trunk for a while, but eventually the wood will be burnt
or rot away releasing the carbon back into the atmosphere. For
this reason claims of carbon-offsetting by planting trees, by
the Scottish and Southern Energy Group (SSE) were rejected by
the UK Advertising Standards Authority, which ordered the SSE
to stop making these claims in its leaflets.
Due
to mounting criticism on tree planting programs, carbon offsetting
firms have started taking refuge in other compensation projects
such as investing in renewable energy projects or energy efficiency
projects which reduce emissions elsewhere, known as Clean Development
Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI). Think of solar
panels, wind parks and conversion of dung and waste into energy.
Smith is also sceptical about such projects, saying that you can
never assess the amount of carbon reduced, since a comparison
between the situation with and without the project cannot accurately
be made.
So
should we stop flying altogether? Activist Kevin Smith distinguishes
between carbon needs (necessary and inevitable transports) and
carbon luxury (short haul trips for which alternatives exist,
holiday flights). Since compensating carbon emissions is a myth,
according to Smith, it's not right to make people believe they
can continue behaving as they do. "This greenwashing is just
a smokescreen standing in the way of working towards solutions,"
says Smith.
Speaking
for CarbonNeutral, Sue Welland told the BBC: "What we do
is help companies measure and reduce their reductions; and where
they can't reduce their emissions, we help them offset."
The
main question -a question of conscience perhaps- is whether certain
emissions are necessary or luxury. UK Environment Minister David
Miliband said last month: "The first step should always be
to see how we can avoid and reduce emissions." But reducing
the number of flights is hardly in the interest of airports. Eindhoven
Airport director Bart de Boer acknowledged that his initiative
would not discourage people to fly. "But that's also not
my task here," he remarked.
By
Green Prices, 27 February 2007, sent by Kevin Smith, e-mail:
kevin@carbontradewatch.org, author of "The
Carbon Neutral Myth Offset Indulgences for your Climate Sins”,
Transnational Institute,
http://www.tni.org/detail_pub.phtml?know_id=56&menu=
index
