Brazil: Social organizations in Bahia demand a moratorium
on eucalyptus plantations
The Government of the State of Bahia,
through the Centre for Environmental Resources, (CRA) held a seminar
on 7 and 8 November with the purpose of “initiating a process
of discussion and reflection on the environmental, social and
economic prospects of eucalyptus plantations in the South and
Extreme South of the State, taking a territorial approach as a
basis, centring on the construction and consolidation of public
policies for the region.” This event represented the continuity
of a process of discussion launched in June this year by the CRA,
seeking participative and negotiated solutions for the main environmental
and socio-economic conflicts associated with this activity in
the region.
Many people were present, including
representatives of pulp companies, representatives of some Municipal
governments, the Environmental Forum (a forum sponsored by the
pulp companies with participation of some NGOs) and the Socio-Environmental
Forum of the Extreme South (including Social Movements, Trade
Unions and NGOs).
The presentation made by CRA was timid,
but included figures that were very different from the previous
ones. Civil society knows that they do not yet correspond to the
true situation in the region. The institution
even admits that various properties with eucalyptus plantations
do not possess a registered legal reserve as required by the legislation,
that are also part of the conditions for the authorization to
implement the project. According to the State Public Ministry,
represented by Dr. Sérgio Mendes, the CRA does not have the capacity
to control, follow-up and demand that at least this requirement
be fulfilled.
The CRA also invited lecturers from
various areas, Professor Fernando Pedrão, an economist from the
Institute of Social Research, spoke about the economic development
model based on the exploitation of natural resources, land expropriation
and large landed estates, with the consent of the Federal and
State governments. Professor Pedro Rocha, from the Biology Institute
of the Federal University of Bahia, clearly showed the negative
impacts of monoculture eucalyptus plantations in the Extreme South
of Bahia on the local fauna and flora, the disappearance of some
species and the great effort that the remaining species must make
to survive. According to the professor, many species do not even
cross the eucalyptus plantations.
Walter de Paula Lima, Full Professor
at the Department of Forestry Sciences of the University of Sao
Paulo, an old acquaintance of member organizations of the Socio-Environmental
Forum of the Extreme South for having taken part in the implementation
of the Veracruz Florestal project, today known as Veracel Celulose.
He provided data and information from South Africa dated 1997,
and made comparisons between eucalyptus plantations and grasslands.
During his presentation he criticised the banners in protest borne
by the social movement organizations, scattered around the auditorium.
In his presentation he mentioned the slogan “Eucalyptus are
not edible” used by the Landless Rural Worker Movement
(MST) in Bahia in 2005 when it occupied an area of Veracel Celulose
as a protest over the lack of an Agrarian Reform policy in the
State of Bahia. He affirmed that we must be careful with these
slogans, because behind the banners there are always “other” intentions.
He laughed at the demonstrators, looking down on them and showing
a total lack of respect for those present.
During the debate, many people had the
opportunity to show their indignation. Melquíades, a member of
CEPEDES, brought up the issue of de Paula Lima’s
participation –through a technical report- in the implementation
of the Veracel project, and described the project’s irregularities
and fraud in the Environmental Impact Assessment carried out by
the pulp company. He revealed that a number of pages from
de Paula Lima’s book had even been copied by the authors of the
document as if they had been written by them. He also showed that
the information used in Professor Lima’s
presentation was outdated and that any rural worker knows that
monoculture eucalyptus plantations deplete water resources, dry
up the soil and eliminate biodiversity, in line with what Professor
Pedro Rocha from the Biology Institute of the Federal University
of Bahia stated in his presentation. Melquíades also highlighted
the Professor’s lack of respect towards the social movements and
said that many things are hidden under the words expressed in
the meeting, such as hunger, violence, lack of respect, non-compliance
with legislation and that behind the scientific evidence presented
by the Professor there is funding from pulp and paper companies
such as Aracruz, Suzano, Bahia Sul and Stora Enso.
The following day was the turn of civil
society. Father Jose presented a document on behalf
the Socio-Environmental Forum of the Extreme South, asking
for a moratorium on eucalyptus plantations, considering that the
body responsible for authorizing plantations has admitted that
it does not have the capacity to act according to the dictates
of the laws, on affirming that they only have 20 technicians to
cover the whole of the State of Bahia.
OPEN LETTER TO SOCIETY AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL
BODIES ON THE SOCIO-ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF MONOCULTURE EUCALYPTUS
PLANTATIONS IN THE SOUTH AND EXTREME SOUTH OF BAHIA
Twenty years ago, during the second
half of the eighties, public hearings were held for the first
pulp and paper company, Bahia Sul Celulose. A small group of people
had prepared themselves well to make a critical follow-up of the
implantation of this first “Development Plan” for the Extreme
South region, participating in all the public hearings regarding
Localization, Implantation and Operation.
Right from the start we always demanded
compliance with existing laws. In this way, at all these hearings
we asked for an Ecological Economic Zoning (EEZ) to be prepared
before anything else, with the participation of representatives
of the Extreme South community. This was because both the representatives
of the company and the Government confirmed that an EEZ was not
only important but necessary to guarantee sustainable development.
On 7 February 2001, State Environmental Legislation 7799 was created,
contemplating this request in chapter IV of Environmental Zoning,
article 42, which states that: “Environmental Zoning, prepared
by the Public Powers, at State and Municipal level in their respective
fields of authority, is aimed at harmonizing public policies with
environmental policy, oriented towards socio-economic development,
in order to guarantee environmental quality and the distribution
of social benefits.”
Additionally, we sought fundaments in
the Federal Constitution, which set out that it is the common
responsibility of the Union, the States, the Federal District
and the Municipalities:
- “To protect
the environment ....” CF/88, article 23, subsection VI
- “To preserve
forests, fauna and flora...” CF/88, article 23, subsection VII
- “To promote
farming and cattle-raising and organize food supply”.
(CF/88, article 23, subsection VIII)
Later we attended all the Aracruz and
Veracel public hearings (for Localization, Implantation and Operation),
at the time that the three companies requested the “International
Green Label.” At all these meetings we denounced irregularities,
non-compliance with the laws, and every time we requested, calmly
and politely, that the EEZ be prepared. We would like to
remind people here, that at one point, when we denounced that
a stream had dried up, the reply by the certifying company was
“the stream is not within the area of the company!” (As if eucalyptus
trees were only to consume water from the place where they are
planted!).
During the last major “public hearing”
organized by IBAMA in 2005, here again in Porto Seguro, we gave
out dozens of photos proving irregularities, we provided
GPS positioning to facilitate monitoring, again requesting
the EEZ ... and we are still waiting, at least for a reply.
In the knowledge that this Seminar should also indicate guidelines
for environmental authorization and the Ecological-Economic Zoning
of the region, according to the invitation we received from the
CRA, we have again come to take part in this seminar on the issue
of monoculture eucalyptus plantations, but not to request an EEZ
because it is already too late. Merely for illustrative
purposes, a few days ago, when we went out to the countryside
we observed the following: along the road, where on one side was
a monoculture sugar cane plantation and on the other, a eucalyptus
plantation, we found an undernourished and anguished cow that
had just given birth to a calf. Surrounding the calf were at least
50 vultures attacking it while the mother was too weak to defend
her baby. The disappearance of streams and rivulets, “water holes”
and the changes in fauna and flora, make the hungry vultures attack
new-born calves to feed themselves.
This is not the first time either that
we hear the illustrious Professor Walter de Paula Lima here in
the region. He, like other illustrious professors have visited
us several times. Over all these years we too have informed ourselves.
We have discovered that in spite of the arguments in the old controversy
over the environmental effects of monoculture eucalyptus plantations
– usually based on scientific work sponsored by the large companies
that carry out industrial exploitation of eucalyptus trees – endeavouring
to place on the list of simple “myths” the curses caused by monoculture
eucalyptus plantations to soil fertility and water springs, that
there is also a vast amount of world literature proving at least,
the following basic points:
1) The high demand for water in fast
growing monoculture eucalyptus plantations can deplete soil
humidity and damage groundwater recharge, unbalancing the water
cycle.
2) High nutrient absorption
in fast growing monoculture eucalyptus plantations may generate
a great deficit in the soil, destabilizing the nutrient cycle.
3) The liberation of chemical substances
or the alelopathic effects on micro-fauna may affect growth
of other plants and micro-organisms thus further diminishing
soil fertility.
4) Genetically modified trees are
a definite threat to still existing native forests.
5) For the local species of fauna,
monoculture eucalyptus plantations are food deserts, which is
the reason for their disappearance.
6) The problem of the effluents
from pulp mills using the ECF system (Free from Elemental Chlorine)
to bleach pulp and containing organichloride compounds (dioxins
and furans), which are persistent cancerigenic substances, with
the capacity to accumulate in animal organisms, causing cancer,
hormone and neurological disorders, infertility, diabetes and
weakness of the immunological system.
In view of the above and CONSIDERING
that “everyone has the right to receive information from public
bodies of their particular interest or of collective or general
interest, which shall be provided within the term foreseen by
the law, under penalty of responsibility...” (Federal Constitution
art., 5º, subsector XXXIII)
IN THIS RESPECT WE REQUEST:
A) A COMPLETE REPORT from the State
bodies responsible for the environment, identifying those responsible
for technical inspection, in addition to the instruments and methodology
applied for inspections in the South and Extreme South region
of Bahia.
B) A COMPLETE REPORT on monitoring,
research and surveys made by these bodies over the past 15 years
in the South and Extreme South region of the State, in monoculture
eucalyptus plantations, including: Name of State entity, Name
of the responsible person, Type of work (monitoring, survey or
research), places where it was carried out, participation of third
parties and the results of these works regarding:
1) The impacts of monoculture eucalyptus
plantations on water, such as:
- the level of the water table.
- poisoning of the water table.
- disappearance of streams and rivulets
in the region
2) The impact of eucalyptus plantations
on the soil because of alelopathy:
- where are the points/places to verify
the impacts of alelopathy?
- which toxic substances were found?
- what has been the loss of soil, nutrients
and soil fertility due to erosion during the period the soil was
left with no cover?
3) Fauna and biological imbalance in
monoculture eucalyptus plantations:
- what fauna-related research and surveys
have been carried out in the eucalyptus plantation
- what were the results?
4) Flora in monoculture eucalyptus plantations
and in the region and mainly soil fauna:
- What toxic elements are being found
in the soil in monoculture eucalyptus plantations and what other
changes have there been in the flora in plantations and around
them?
- Which are the differences between
the soil fauna in monoculture eucalyptus plantations and in other
plantations?
- What adaptations have been made by
the companies to the physical, chemical, biological and hydrological
properties of the existing ecosystems, in order to minimize noxious
effects?
5) Plantations of manipulated and/or
genetically modified trees:
- At a meeting in Eunápolis with Deputy
Zilton Rocha, then president of the Environment Commission of
the Legislative Assembly, representatives of Veracel admitted
that they have been making alterations with genetic modifications
to prevent the trees from flowering. In addition to this, we have
observed on many occasions and in different places, diseases in
a large part of the eucalyptus plantations. How is the State following
up on plantations of manipulated and genetically modified trees?
The State of Bahia also has the duty
to clarify to society the following issues:
I) Until the sixties, monoculture eucalyptus
productivity was 20 m3 ha/year of timber, which increased to 40
m3 ha/year in the eighties. Today, there is talk of a production
of up to 60 m3 ha/year. Does this increase in production per hectare
further accelerate the process of desertification, depleting the
soil even faster? Does this increase in production per hectare
justify the amount of land that the companies are occupying to
reach the production of timber established in the requests for
authorization submitted to public bodies? What has
the State done to monitor and control this brutal and unlimited
soil exploitation in the region? What surveys have been made in
this respect and what have been the results?
II) SUZANO increased production of its
factory in Mucuri from 680,000 to 1,680,000 Ton/Pulp/Year. In
order to produce 680,000 ton/year it required an EIA/IIA, and
also Public Hearings. In the almost triplication of production,
there have been no EIA, nor IIA, nor Public Hearings. Triplication
of production implies, among other negative impacts, to triple
the amount of water consumed during the process, the need to increase
the capacity of the Water Treatment station, the need to control
and make the generating company responsible for the solid and
industrial waste generated during the production process, particularly
special waste and agrochemical containers, among other factors.
How has the State resolved the authorization and the triplication
of this Company’s production? What were the problems this caused
to the already critical situation of the Mucuri River? What surveys
were made in this respect and what were the results?
III) We would also like to receive a
report on how many times the State has analyzed the effluents
of the Suzano and Veracel pulp mills and on how it is addressing
the final disposal of this highly toxic waste.
IV) As the industry usually invokes
to its benefit the creation of new work stations, it is necessary
for these figures to be made known and to be analyzed by local
society and compared with the negative social impacts on family
and peasant farming. It is urgent to question whether the
DRT (Regional Labour Delegation) has satisfactorily fulfilled
its role as monitor. The labour health plan and other factors
related with the labour environment must be made known.
V) It is well-known by all that the
large corporations only establish themselves in developing countries,
through tax breaks and incentives, while the national micro, small
and medium-sized companies must pay all duties, generating a perverse
concentration of wealth precisely in the hands of the richer and
more powerful sector of society. We need to know the tax instruments
in force and their representation in the economic growth model
defended by these companies.
The unchecked expansion of monoculture
eucalyptus plantations is also causing socio-environmental conflicts
and violations to human rights. We do not have the time
to give details of these facts, but it is essential to record
the illegal occupation of indigenous peoples’ land, the lack of
respect of the rights of the still remaining peoples from the
quilombos (communities of descendants of runaway African slaves);
the aggravation of family and peasant farming conditions; the
paralysation of the Agrarian Reform, the constant increase in
the price of land in the region; the growing slum-like conditions
of the population evicted to the city belts, where they are obliged
to survive under subhuman conditions; the lack of supply and food
insecurity, caused by the drop in farming families, the exaggerated
allocation of land for monoculture plantations and finally, the
lack of adoption of affirmative action towards sustainable and
inclusive development.
Considering that it is the common responsibility
of the Union, the States and the Federal District and Municipalities
to:
- “Protect
the environment...” CF/88, article 23, subsection VI
- “Preserve
forests, fauna and flora” CF/88, article 23, subsection VII
- “Foster the
production of agriculture and livestock and organize food supply”
(CF/88, article 23, subsection VIII)
We request information on what the State
and the Municipalities have done to comply with the Federal Constitution
of 1988, article 23, subsection VIII.
FINAL OBSERVATION:
Finally, an additional observation is
essential: humbly, we do not believe that the State has the human
and physical conditions required to fulfil its role: That of guaranteeing
a sustainable environment for the present and future population.
During various meetings, the Director
of CRA, Mrs. Bete Wagner, told us that on taking up the direction
of the State environmental body, she found that she only had 20
environmental technicians for the whole State, and only 3 engineers
specialized in public health, having to make temporary contracts
to double this figure, while waiting for the 2008 public prequalification
process.
Faced with this terrifying picture,
the conclusion is obvious: that the State is not prepared to assess
and resolve on activities having a highly negative environmental
impact. Therefore, we beg for the immediate paralysation of any
authorization for new monoculture eucalyptus plantations (a moratorium
on eucalyptus plantations), until the State is in the necessary
condition to guarantee a healthy environment now, and in the future
for the population of Bahia, ensuring the participation of civil
society in all stages of monitoring.
In our opinion, most of the Extreme
South of Bahia is already “HOSTAGE” to the pulp and paper companies
and the South of Bahia is heading towards the same fate, and this
is absolutely UNACCEPTABLE.
Porto Seguro, 18 November 2007
Socio-Environmental Forum of the South
and Extreme South of Bahia
