THE
FOCUS OF THIS ISSUE:
Climate Change and the Expansion of Tree Plantations
Climate
change is not only already happening and impacting on the lives
and livelihoods of millions of people, but is set to accelerate
if actions to address the problem are not urgently implemented.
The resulting extreme winds and temperatures, floods, droughts
and rise in sea levels will affect increasing numbers of people,
millions of which will be forced to migrate and become environmental
refugees.
Within
such dramatic scenario, governments have until now refused to
focus on the real problem –fossil fuel emissions– and have centred
their attention on cheap false solutions. Many of those “solutions”
are linked to the promotion of tree plantations as either carbon
sinks, as sources of biodiesel (oil palm) or aimed at the production
of cellulosic ethanol (eucalyptus, poplars, willows, etc.). The
biotechnology industry has also contributed to these plans with
research on genetically engineered trees able to either store
more carbon (with more lignin content) or produce more ethanol
(more cellulose content).
To
effectively counter those policies, it is important to learn about
the different mechanisms used by governments for the promotion
of tree plantations and about those used by local populations
and organizations to oppose them. We hope that the information
provided in this issue of the bulletin will serve that purpose.
index
OUR
VIEWPOINT
- The 13th round of
the climate game in Bali
In
1992, governments acknowledged that climate change was real and
that something needed to be done to avoid a major catastrophe.
As a result, they signed and ratified the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Fifteen years have passed
and the Convention’s Conference of the Parties will meet for its
13th time in Bali, Indonesia, from 3-14 December 2007.
How
much has this convention achieved to counter the problem it was
created to address? Have the main emitters reduced their emissions?
The press release prepared for this event by the Convention’s
secretariat gives a clear answer to both questions, when it says:
“According to data
submitted to the secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the total greenhouse gas emissions
of 40 industrialized countries rose to an all-time high in 2005,
continuing the upward trend of the year before.”
This
means that the countries that bear most of the responsibility
for destroying the Earth’s climate are continuing to do so. In
spite of that, they will again attend the Climate Change Convention
and will put forward new proposals … for continuing business as
usual.
Business:
this is the best way to describe this Convention. It’s all about
saving and making money. Paraphrasing former president Clinton,
during his 1992 presidential campaign, it’s not the climate: it’s
the economy, stupid!
Again the Convention
secretariat’s press release provides evidence on the above by
saying that “The Kyoto Protocol has spawned international emissions
trading worth 30 billion dollars in 2006, with the bulk of emissions
trading taking place within the European Union’s emissions trading
scheme (EU ETS). The EU ETS will be linked to trading under the
Kyoto Protocol next year. The Protocol’s CDM is already enjoying
rapid growth.”
It is access to those
billions of dollars –and not climate– that matters. New clever
schemes are being invented all the time, hidden under obscure
acronyms that the general public is unable to decipher: CDM, JI,
PCF and many others. In Bali there will now be discussions on
two new acronyms –RED and REDD– which stand for “Reducing Emissions
from Deforestation”, and for “Reducing Emissions from Deforestation
and forest Degradation”.
The
RED/REDD game is about to start in Bali. Southern government players,
actively destroying forests in their countries –and thereby releasing
enormous amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere– will declare
that they need to be “compensated” in order to conserve forests
and the carbon stored therein. Northern government players, actively
contributing to the destruction of those same forests through
investments and trade will declare that they are willing to pay
if their own releases of enormous amounts of carbon dioxide to
the atmosphere are “compensated” through carbon trading.
Of
course those forests need to be conserved, but not simply because
of their carbon storage capacity. Among many other reasons, because
they help to regulate the water cycle and contain most of terrestrial
biodiversity. Even more importantly, because they are home to
countless peoples and cultures that depend on them. In that respect,
Southern governments need to be reminded that forest conservation
is an obligation towards their own peoples and not a negotiable
market commodity. For their part, Northern governments need to
be reminded –by the world at large– that their fossil fuel-related
emissions are destroying the planet’s climate and cannot be “compensated”
by paying for forest conservation or by buying carbon credits
from others.
The
question is: can we expect something positive from the Bali meeting?
The sad answer is that we very much doubt it. To make matters
worse, the World Bank will use the opportunity to try to sell
its more recent invention –the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility–
while carbon brokers, nuclear energy companies, agrofuel proponents,
hydroelectric corporations, biotechnology firms, assorted consultants,
will all try to sell their goods and services in what has become
something more akin to a market than to a UN Convention.
Of
course NGO participants in Bali will be able to do some damage
control regarding some of the more damaging proposals put forward
by governments, but their main responsibility will be to later
inform people about what their governments are NOT doing to address
climate change. It is people –and particularly the more vulnerable
groups such as poor women, men and children– who will suffer the
most and who therefore need to be well informed, because only
informed peoples will be able to force governments into real action
before it is too late. It’s not the economy: it’s humanity, stupid!
index
GREEN DESERTS IN
THE MAKING
-
Policies and actors
behind monoculture tree plantations
The present expansion
of monoculture tree plantations has not happened by chance or
just because some governments got this idea. On the contrary,
it is the result of the action of a group of actors that set out
to promote such plantations.
In the fifties, the
FAO became the main ideologist behind the large scale monoculture
eucalyptus and pine plantation model in the South (as part of
the so-called Green Revolution, promoted by this organization),
as a response to the needs of large industrial companies that
were exhausting their traditional sources of raw material.
In
the subsequent decades a series of actors entered the scene –
the World Bank, IMF, Inter American Development Bank, Asian Development
Bank, United Nations processes on forests (IPF, IFF, UNFF), bilateral
agencies such as GTZ and JICA, consulting firms such as Jaakko
Poyry- providing arguments in favour, technical knowledge, research
and funding to convince governments about the benefits of this
model. The plantation model quickly expanded as a result
of the growth of a voracious consumer market – encouraged by industry
itself – until reaching its present enormous expansion.
As
a result of those external influences, many southern governments
put in place national policies -already defined and often copied
with slight variations– for the promotion of tree plantations
aimed at export markets: the cosmetic industry and recently agro-fuels
from oil palms, timber and pulp from pine trees, pulp and paper
from eucalyptus, and rubber for the automobile industry.
According
to the conditions in each country, State policies adopted various
forms of promotion, ranging from direct and indirect subsidies
(such as tax breaks, partial refund of plantation costs, soft
long-term credits, tax rebates on imports of machines and
vehicles, infrastructure, equal benefits for foreign investment,
research), to concessions in forest lands.
Direct
subsidies were instrumental in countries such as Chile and Uruguay,
while concessions in forest lands –including commercial logging
and subsequent conversion to plantations- was the main mechanism
for promotion in Indonesia, Malaysia/Borneo.
At
the same time, States undertook – with no cost to the companies
– social control and -whenever necessary- repression of local
opposition. In most cases, repression is part of the “promotion,”
both to ensure eviction of peasant and indigenous communities
to transfer their lands to the companies in the case of concessions
– such as happened in Indonesia, Colombia, Papua-New Guinea, Swaziland,
South Africa – and to guarantee the stability of the property
in the hands of large national and foreign companies in the case
of land acquisition.
In
both cases, the State took on the function of guaranteeing safe
land tenure to the companies, repressing any local claim, as has
been the case with the Mapuche in Chile, the Tupinikim, Guarani
and Pataxo in Brazil, the Afro-descendant communities in Colombia,
Brazil, Ecuador, the indigenous communities in Western Kalimantan
in Indonesia and Sarawak in Malaysia, the Lahu, Lisu and Palaung
ethnic groups in Thailand, just to name a few.
In
fact, the development of large-scale tree plantations took place,
in many cases, under the protection of military dictatorships,
as was the case in those countries having the largest plantation
areas: Indonesia during the genocidal regime of Suharto, Chile
during the dictatorship of Pinochet, South Africa during apartheid
and Brazil during the military dictatorship.
As
if the existing stimulus to the promotion of plantations were
not enough, the Kyoto Protocol, adopted in December 1997 as part
of the United Nations Convention on Climate Change, has become
another important actor in the promotion of large-scale tree plantations,
insofar as it enables industrialized countries to “compensate”
their carbon dioxide emissions with the establishment of tree
plantations in unindustrialized countries. As pointed out in the
editorial, the Kyoto Protocol endorsed the creation of an international
emissions trading market, worth US$ 30
billion in 2006. The market mechanism
for “carbon credits” thus results in an additional subsidy for
the promotion of tree plantations.
The
new agro-fuel business is yet another turn of the screw in the
promotion of industrial tree plantations, creating another market
outlet for oil palm as raw material for biodiesel and likely to
span other tree plantations, such as eucalyptus, for the production
of cellulosic ethanol from transgenic trees.
However,
simultaneously with the promotion of tree plantations, processes
resisting them have taken place, adopting various forms, ranging
from legal mechanisms to grass-roots’ struggles, and generally
taking on both forms. The result is that State bodies are
now having pressure put on them to adopt measures to limit the
expansion of these monoculture plantations. The following are
some examples to illustrate this situation:
In
Chile, Parliament recently adopted Agreement Project 416, that
entrusts the Natural Resources and Environmental Commission with
investigating and compiling the social, labour and environmental
impacts of the forestry model, implying a request for reports
from ministries and the summonsing of various persons to declare
before the Commission.
In
Ecuador, the Confederation of Indigenous Nations of Ecuador (CONAIE),
is putting forward a constitutional proposal to the Constitutional
Assembly, including the following concepts: “The State shall permanently
seek the overall and sustainable development of agriculture, animal
husbandry, artisan aquiculture and fisheries, and agro-industry,
supplying quality products for the internal market, with the aim
of achieving food sovereignty for the population, giving priority
to the supply of nutritional requirements over the production
of bio-fuels....” “A sustainable farming model implies the preservation
and enhancement of crop genetic diversity, the prohibition of
transgenic crops and monoculture practices in general, all reducing
genetic diversity.”
“The amassing of land and latifundia are prohibited, and the lands
shall serve to integrate small-holdings in productive units, promoting
community property and cooperative organization.”
In
Tasmania, King Island Council banned plantations on farm land
and eliminated tree plantations as an acceptable agricultural
land use from its plans (see WRM Bulletin no. 115). There has
been increasing mobilization against the pulp and paper company
Gunns, with a large demonstration in the capital city, Hobart,
in which 15,000 people took part.
It
should be mentioned that some regulations in force have contained
the indiscriminate expansion of monoculture tree plantations.
Such is the case of the South African National Water Law (No.
34 of 1998), which recognizes that the reduction of water courses
can be caused by tree plantations and establishes limits to their
expansion.
Here
below, and as a typical case, we present a more detailed analysis
of the situation in Brazil (one of the countries hosting the largest
areas of plantations): the actors promoting the large-scale plantation
model, the process of its implementation, the diverse mechanisms
that end up by shaping State policy. Various grass-roots initiatives
are also described, giving voice to the many sectors that have
been deprived of their lands and livelihoods, their culture, their
environment and their future and who, through organized struggles,
are also paving the way to hope.
index
BRAZIL: A FLAGSHIP
CASE
- Pulp giants wipe out
peoples, culture and the environment in Southern
Brazil
With
the ideological discourse of big capital masquerading as sustainable
development and as saviours of the poor, the pulp giants advance
on the State of Rio Grande do Sul. With their capital they finance
electoral campaigns, pay for misleading advertising and twist
public power around their little fingers.
These
are documents to adjust conduct (TAC) to allow for the development
of plantations from now on, with the argument that the companies
should not suffer economic losses. This involves financing electoral
campaigns and changes of directors in environmental bodies, in
addition to putting pressure on the experts of these institutions
to accelerate environmental authorizations.
Unscrupulous
company directors, publicly declare that environmental bodies
with technical competence must obey the orders of the State government,
clearly showing that this is a political decision. The State and
Federal government are in favour of tree plantations. The political
orientation of Lula’s Government is to increase pulp and bio-fuel
production. Eucalyptus plantations contemplate these two interests
that must be promoted at all costs.
Rejection
of the regulatory document
To
analyze the state’s area and the impact of tree plantations, a
division into plantation zones was made, according to decisions
of the previous State government. This is a document (bill 6424/05)
gathering laws, rules and standards to guide plantations, identifying
the more fragile and less fragile areas for this activity, in
consideration of social and environmental aspects.
According
to the demarcation, the state was divided into 45 Natural Landscape
Units (NLUs). In a NLU, the environment’s response to eucalyptus
plantations is identical all over its area, contrary to the case
of hydrographical basins – as suggested by some critics of the
division into zones - which present very heterogeneous features.
NLUs
were classified as being of high, medium or low restriction for
tree plantations. Criteria applied, such as the existence of (Federal,
State or Municipal) Conservation Units, the presence of critically
endangered fauna or flora (among them the last fragments of native
grasslands), water availability and the potential risk of water
deficit in the summer, soil fragility, a socio-economic analysis,
the record of indigenous and quilombola* territories.
According
to these criteria, some eight million hectares were liberated
for tree plantations, many more than the million hectares expected
by the companies. Even so, both the companies and the state government
have rejected the document and many mechanisms have been set up
to prevent it from coming into force. Until it is adopted by the
competent environmental body (CONSEMA) it has no value as a law,
and what would be a framework for the state, has been set aside
due to political pressure.
Political
pressure in the state has generated the removal from their post
of four presidents of the State Foundation for the Protection
of the Natural Environment (FEPAM), the state body responsible
for authorizations and for changes in the Environmental Secretariat.
The election of a new environmental secretary -an attorney- seemingly
wants to exert moral pressure on the actions of the public ministry
(from the judicial power) to deter compliance of its tasks in
defence of the environment and the population’s rights.
Fraudulent
public hearings
The
division into zones should be submitted to the population in each
of the NLUs during public hearings held in situ. However, the
hearings held so far have been full of officials from the pulp
companies, who travelled from one hearing to another. The local
population, directly affected by the plantations, did not learn
of the contents of the document and were unable to enter the hearings
because all the places had been taken.
The
dates of new public hearings have been set for addressing Environmental
Impact Assessments, as a first step in the process of analysis
of the Environmental Impact Reports of the companies Aracruz Celulose,
Derflin (Stora Enso) and Votorantim Celulose e Papel. The expectations
are that the same show will be repeated. Studies that should be
carried out over at least a decade –for example the hydrological
studies– have been submitted as completed.
Making
laws more flexible endangers the environment
Frontier
zones, illegally acquired by Stora Enso and thwarting the corresponding
national legislation, have been authorized for the plantations
of Delfrin –a company bearing a Brazilian name but operated with
Stora Enso capital. Attempts have been made involving parliamentarians
to change this law.
A
bill aimed at making environmental laws more flexible and proposing
changes in the Forestry Law has been submitted at federal level
by the rural sector having a marked interest in eucalyptus latifundia,
as they consider that this will prevent the advance of agrarian
reform settlements, considered by them to be a threat.
Bill
6424/ 05 is presently being considered by the Chamber of Deputies.
Among the suggested changes is the plantation of exotic trees
in legal reserve areas. Current Brazilian
legislation establishes that the area of Legal Reserves must be
80% in the Amazon, 35% in the Cerrado region within the states
comprising the Legal Amazon and 20% of the property in other regions
of the country. The Legal Reserve is an area maintaining
native vegetation fulfilling an ecological habitat function for
biodiversity and/or providing environmental services, such as
a reserve of forest products, soil and water protection, pest
and fire control and atmospheric carbon trapping. If adopted,
the project will enable large scale plantation of raw material
for the production of bio-fuels - mainly of oil palms in the Amazon-
and the advance of monoculture eucalyptus plantations in the rest
of Brazil.
The
expansion of areas under eucalyptus plantations, initially for
the production of pulp and paper, will be transformed in the medium
term into monoculture plantations for the production of bio-fuels.
José Goldemberg, a research worker at Sao Paulo University, affirms
that the solution to the energy crisis in scientific terms is
to invest in research to extract fuel from pulp, with an energy
yield of up to ten times more than Brazilian alcohol. Today
the technology to transform eucalyptus pulp into fuel is still
sophisticated and is in the hands of Shell and British Petroleum.
In this way, eucalyptus plantations serve to ensure hegemony and
control over agro-fuels. The change in the energy matrix from
oil to other products is generating changes in society, already
foreseen by the Rockefeller Group, which is consolidating its
domain over the planet’s energy matrix.
Fortunately,
ants also bother giants
The
illegal activities of the companies in confabulation with the
state became evident following the signature of contracts with
the agrarian reform settlers for planting eucalyptus in their
plots under the mechanism of “outgrower schemes”. The contracts
should not have been signed with the settlers as they do not yet
possess the land. Plantations in settlements were a good marketing
strategy. The companies disseminated that monoculture plantations
were good and fulfilled their social function because even the
settlers were planting. In May this year the settlers pulled up
the eucalyptus trees or saplings that they had planted in the
plots.
The
Movement of Landless Rural Workers (MST), carried out a march
involving 1700 people, between September and November. October
16 was designated as the Day against Multinational Companies and
for Food Sovereignty. They camped in front of Votorantim Celulose
(Bagé) and Stora Enso (Rosário do Sul) as a strategy to attract
the attention of the population and of the government, asking
it to allocate public resources to purposes other than the large
companies.
This
year, Votorantim (VCP) received 40 million reais (some 22 million
dollars) from the National Economic and Social Development Bank
(BNDES), (which is only social in name). Caixa RS, Banrisul and
BRDE stated that they had an excess of resources to finance tree
plantations. The pulp companies are linked to European crowns,
and in Brazil they receive financial incentives and tax exemptions
under the Kandir Law. Thus, ninety-five percent of the pulp is
exported tax free. In the State of Rio Grande do Sul, export companies
are exempt from paying ICMS (Tax on the Circulation of Goods and
Services). In the meanwhile, the population is indefinitely waiting
for loans for small tourism and agro-ecology projects and to set
up a productive network generating sustainable development.
In
addition to popular pressure, environmental NGOs have lodged a
civil lawsuit, demanding that environmental laws be enforced and
attention be paid to the division of zones for plantations. Lately,
the decision of the federal judge, Clarides Rahmeier transferred
from the state sphere to the federal organization, IBAMA, the
mission of freeing zones for plantations in Rio Grande do Sul.
This provision reinitiated the debate. The mayors of some municipalities
went to the capital city to question the legal decision. Any change
however small it may be, in the plans stipulated by the Government
and the companies, generates great pressure from the latter and
the dissemination of fantastic economic sums of possible drops
in investment in the State.
Interviewed
about this decision, Aracruz’s director of operations, Walter
Lídio Nunes, stated “We were invited to develop the Southern Half
[of the state]. We are surprised that the judge should question
a state in which the rule of law prevails.
We will fall behind in our schedule.” In fact we do live in a
state where the rule of law prevails: the
rule of capital dominating the environment and the population.
As a result of social and legal mobilization it is hoped that
something will change in the current policy. Finally, thousands
of ants also have the force to overthrow a giant.
By
Ana Paula Fagundes, biologist, e-mail: sorriam@hotmail.com.
More information on the subject can be found in the webpage: www.defesabiogaucha.org
*Quilombola:
descendents of runaway slaves in Brazil
index
- 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
index
-
Brazil: Tree monoculture promotion mechanisms and opposition
In
order for vast extensions of industrial plantations to be viable
in Brasil direct interactions where established between the government,
companies, banks, universities, media, as well as with international
and financial institutions, producers and buyers. A broad political
orchestration resulted in the creation of a number of mechanisms
related to legal, taxation, financial, technical, scientific,
agrarian and logistic support. In the same manner articulations
opposing those policies increased as monocultures expanded.
Initially
forest policy sought to define a conjunction of techniques capable
of managing the utilization of forest resources. The first forest
regulation in Brasil dates to 1934 with the first Forestry Code
that defines some protected areas but also includes the possibility
of substituting forests for tree monocultures.
In
1965, through Law 4.771 a second Forestry Code was
adopted, which included new categories of conservation units.
In this same context, Law 5.106 of September 1966, regulated tax
incentives for reforestation, benefiting physical and legal entities
contributing to income tax. Physical entities could discount from
aggregate income (used to calculate income tax) all costs deriving
from the activity up to a limit of 50% of income. Legal entities
could deduct the value of costs incurred from the activity in
up to 50% of due tax. In 1970 a modification passed through decree–law
1.134 (16/11/70) allowed the contributor to discount up to 50%
of taxes due, to invest in forestry instead of deducting expenditure
costs from the value of taxes due.
During
the first decades of the 20th century some states established
forestry departments linked to the Ministry of Agriculture and
in 1967 Decree- Law 289 established the Brazilian Institute for
Forestry Development (IBDF for the abbreviation in Portuguese)
under the Ministry of Agriculture.
In
order to promote economic growth large investments where made
in scientific and technological development. In 1967 the first
generation of professional foresters graduated from a course supported
by an agreement between the IBDF and FAO. In 1968 the Institute
for Forestry Research (IEPF) was established through a joint initiative
between the Higher School of Agriculture Luiz de Queiroz (ESALQ-
USP) and the companies Champion, Duratex, Rigesa, Suzano and Madeirit.
The objective of IEPF was the development and dissemination of
technology in the forestry sector with funding for carrying out
research with resources from the public sector through financial
incentives for reforestation.
Financial
support from the State, through the National Development Bank
(BNDE), made it possible for leading pulp-producing companies
to benefit from Decision Nº 196/68 for installation and/or augmentation
projects that exceeded a production capacity of 100 tonnes a day
and that ensured self sufficiency in the supply of wood equivalent
to at least 50% of estimated need. As from 1972 priority was given
to incentives for projects with a production capacity exceeding
1000 tonnes per day, but accepting that this aim could be achieved
in two stages of 500 tonnes each.
The
proliferation of sectoral executive groups led to the creation,
in 1969, of the Industrial Development Council, integrated by
representatives from the economic ministries, the armed forces,
BNDES, Bank of Brazil and representative private sector institutions
such as the pulp and paper group that was given the function of
formulating and coordinating the orientation guidelines of the
expansion of this sector.
The
stage of greatest financial incentive for tree plantation took
place during the 1970’s and up until the mid 1980’s with the Second
National Development Plan. According to this plan the aims that
had to be achieved between 1974 and 1979 for pulp and paper production
represented an increase of 85% and 28% respectively.
The
BNDE action plan for the period 1974-78 included support to large
pulp projects so that the sector could reach a level of production
higher than 2.5 million tonnes in 1978.
The
Sectoral Incentives Fund (FISET) established by Decree- Law 1376/74
provided the principal source of tax incentives between 1974 and
1988, providing long-term loans at reduced interest rates and
allowing deductions in income taxes for investments in reforestation
projects.
The
National Pulp and Paper Plan (PNPC) was launched in 1974, with
the aim of establishing 4 million hectares of tree plantations.
To achieve this, a programme was approved for the establishment
of 30 “forestry districts” –areas selected for avoiding the dispersal
of forestry resources. A division was established between
pulp production and energy production sub districts. The
minimum area demanded was 1000 hectares per project and the proximity
to the industries was also taken into account. Industries
having their own wood supply from plantations were privileged.
In order to ensure large contiguous areas, the government would
promote the establishment of plantations in defined areas.
Other
incentive modalities provided to private companies were the exemption
of Import Tax and of the Tax on Industrialized Products, in addition
to stimulating the expansion of export-oriented products.
The
Second National Pulp and Paper Plan adopted in 1987 established
the expansion goals until 1995 (imports of equipment, new reforestation
and export of production). The projected expansion of pulp production
implied an increase from 3.5 million tonnes per annum to 6.6 million/tonnes/per
annum.
In
addition to large scale financing from BNDES, another financing
and capitalization mechanism, mainly for pulp companies was provided
by loans from international institutions like the International
Finance Coorporation (IFC) of the World Bank. Raising resources
in the international market included a number of operations with
commercial banks, like in the case of Aracruz Cellulose with the
Den Norske Bank (Norway), Citibank, J.P. Morgan, Chase Manhatan,
and the New York stock exchange.
The
National Forest Programme (PNF for the Portuguese abbreviation)
was created in 2000 within the Environment Ministry and placed
under the responsibility of the National Forest Programme Directory.
The programme was implemented with resources coming from the national
Treasury and external financial and technical cooperation, principally
from the International Tropical Timber organisation (ITTO), the
Pilot Programme for the Protection of Tropical Forests (PPG7),
the Global Environment Facility and the governments of Japan,
the Netherlands and United Kingdom.
From
2004 to 2007 one of the goals of the PNF was the expansion of
the plantation area through the planting of 800,000 hectares in
small and medium sized properties and 1.2 million hectares in
corporate programmes.
A
number of financial sources for the establishment of tree plantations
were created, the main ones being: BNDES-FINEM (Direct financing
for investments), PRONAF Florestal (coordinated
by the Ministry of Agrarian Development since 2002), PROPFLORA
(coordinated by the Ministry of Agriculture since 2002).
Other
additional funding sources were regional forestry funds like FNO
Floresta (northern region), FCO Pronatureza (central west region),
FNE Verde (North East region).
Among
other financial stimuli favouring tree plantations are the National
Programme of Agrarian Credit as part of the
National Plan of Agrarian Reform of the Agrarian Reform Ministry
which derives from a loan agreement with the World Bank.
Having
succeeded in creating such a broad set of mechanism for the viability
of monocultures, the companies make strong investments in electoral
campaigns of candidates of all parties and in this way secure
parliamentary support as, for example, with the Parliamentary
Front for Forestry as well as with the
ruralist parliamentary group.
Of
more recent origin, another strategy promoting the expansion of
tree plantations in Brazil is that of carbon credits, originating
in the Kyoto Protocol. One of the primary markets that negotiates
these credits is the Brazilian Carbon Market (MBRE) –a joint initiative
of BM&F (stock exchange) and the Ministry of Development,
Industry and Trade.
Another
potencial market in Brasil is that of biofuels based on cellulose
that is already attracting investments for research.
There
are also some proposals for introducing changes to the Forestry
Code (at the National Parliament) aimed at reducing the area of
legal reserve in the Amazon from the current 80% to 50% in areas
that have already been logged. In the remaining 30% property holders
could plant exotic species.
Initiatives that oppose industrial monoculture
tree plantations
The
expansion of tree monocultures
has been accompanied by a number of articulations
aimed at restricting the planted areas, stopping the expansion
and even stopping large-scale plantations.
The
following are some of the restrictive actions:
*
state legislation such as law 6.780/01 of Espirito Santo State
that prohibits eucalyptus plantations aimed at the production
of pulp until an Ecological Economic Demarcation has been concluded
and promulgated. Yet the Supreme Federal Court left it without
effect in June 2002.
*
laws that guarantee the territorial rights of traditional peoples
like the Quilombolos (decree- law 4887/ 03) can also limit the
possession of lands in the hands of pulp companies.
*
the articulation of civil society networks that have been organised
to generate awareness on the impacts of monocultures, to denounce,
to put pressure on the government and companies, to propose alternatives
to the prevailing development model amongst other actions. Among
these are the following: the Network against the Green Desert,
the National Agroecology Articulation, the Brazilian Network for
Environmental Justice and the Brazilian Network on Multilateral
Financial Institutions.
*civil
society participation in public hearings for the presentation
or expansion of industrial projects. Public hearings condition
the approval of industrial investments; however, in practice they
do not decide on anything.
*complaints
to the Public Ministry, to international institutions, legal actions.
*
in several regions of the country occupations by rural social
movements have taken place on lands planted with eucalyptus, principally
by the Landless Workers Movement demanding Agrarian Reform whilst
questioning the productivity and the social function of these
large estates (in line with articles 185 and 186 of the Brazilian
Constitution).
*There
has also been a strong articulation of civil society to demand
from BNDES that it complies with its function as a public bank
and that it establishes policies of openness, dialogue and transparency
regarding its investments, that it defines more appropriate social
and environmental criteria to diminish social inequities within
the Brazilian population and that it stops investing in private
projects of agribusiness, like in the pulp and paper sector in
line with the 2007 “BNDES Platform”.
By
Daniela Meirelles and Alacir De´Nadai, FASE-ES, email:
fases@terra.com.br
index
AN EYE ON REGIONAL
SCENARIOS
-
Indonesia: Government Policy on Palm Oil
Development
Based
on an analysis of the evolving legislation on plantations, it
is possible to identify five phases in government policies for
palm oil development in Indonesia. We shall call these the PIR-Trans
phase (up until October 1993), the Deregulation Phase (1993-1996),
the Privatisation Phase (1996-1998), the Cooperatives Phase (1998-2002)
and the current Decentralization Phase (2002-2006). It should
be noted, however, that these phases were neither wholly discrete
nor did the initiation of a new phase imply the ending of the
previously launched processes.
PIR-Trans:
Before October 1993, Government
efforts to establish oil palm plantations were centred on taking
over forested areas on the Outer islands and allocating these
areas to PTPN [State-owned plantation company] operators, which
controlled both inti [large-scale operations on extensive
areas] and plasma [individually operated smallholdings]
holdings, supplied with a workforce and smallholders through
the Transmigration programme. Laws were passed in 1986 and 1990
designed to ensure better coordination between government agencies
and so speed up the process of permitting required to release
forest lands for conversion. Control of forests remained centralized
with regional forestry offices (Kanwil Kehutanan) only
being authorised to release up to 100 ha. for plantations.
During
this period, resident communities’ customary rights in land were
often not recognised. Instead indigenous peoples were inserted
into the Transmigration schemes either by being resettled as Transmigrant
villages made up of local people (Translok) or by being
slipped into mixed settlements (Transmigrasi sisipan) comprising
local people and State-sponsored migrants from Java, Madura and
Bali. Most PIR-Trans schemes allocated only 2 hectares to each
Transmigrant family, half of which they were expected to plant
with rice and half of which was to be developed as oil palm to
supply the mills established alongside the nucleus estate. Migrants
complained of sub-standard housing, low prices for fresh fruit
bunches of oil palm (FFB) and long delays in the payment of wages,
settling debts and transferring land titles.
Deregulation
Phase: In October 1993, the government
passed two laws as part of a National Deregulation Policy Package.
The overall aim of the policy was to give local governors greater
authority to promote regional development, while seeking to ensure
that private companies had a long term commitment to the areas
they were investing in. Under these laws, Governors could issue
permits for the conversion of forest areas up to 200 hectares,
while areas over 200 hectares remained the responsibility of the
Directorate General of Estate Crops in Jakarta. Private companies
applying for forest conversion permits, on the other hand, were
not allowed to transfer ownership of leaseholds so secured.
Privatisation
Phase: The final years of the Suharto
dictatorship saw a concerted drive across several sectors, including
estate crops, to privatise para-statal companies, encourage private
sector initiatives and facilitate foreign direct investment. A
number of laws were passed designed to accelerate estate crop
development in this way and ensure fair play between companies.
The procedures by which companies secured permits for developing
estates were clarified – a temporary, one year, start-up permit
(ijin prinsip), which could be converted to a permanent
permit (ijin tetap) and to which an expansion permit could
be added (ijin perluasan). Requirements were introduced
to ensure that companies planning to convert forests first secured
the consent of any logging companies with logging permits (HPH)
over the same areas. A new law also clarified that forest lands
cleared and planted with estate crops were to be classified in
Provincial Spatial Plans as agricultural lands but with no rights
to plantation permits attached.
Cooperatives
Phase: The fall of the Suharto regime
resulted in an era of reform (reformasi) which allowed
politicians with alternative ideas about rural development to
gain power temporarily. Efforts were made to encourage models
of development that would allow local communities to benefit more
directly from lands and natural resources. While a law was passed
prohibiting forest conversion in protected forests (hutan lindung),
so harmonizing local and regional spatial planning procedures,
a decree was passed to allow three-year plantation permits (ijin
usaha perkebunan) to be granted to cooperatives for areas
up to 1000 hectares by provincial Governors or up to 20,000 hectares
by the central Ministry of Forests and Estate Crops.
Decentralization
Phase: The fall of Suharto also
ushered in a period of radical political change in Indonesia,
whereby far greater powers to control lands, resources and to
administer regional budgets were entrusted to local governments
and legislatures. Since 2002, these changes have also had some
impact on the development of the palm oil sector, while still
limiting local authorities to encouraging medium-scale plantations.
A new law allows district level regents (bupati) to issue
permits of up to 1000 hectares, while any areas overlapping district
boundaries remain the prerogative of Provincial Governors. However,
authority to issue permits of over 1000 hectares was entrusted
to the Ministry of Agriculture. Moreover, responding to concerns
about the rate at which forests were being cleared for plantations
even though vast areas of degraded lands were available for planting,
in 2005 the Government passed another law establishing a moratorium
on forest conversion for estate crops.
The
moratorium was introduced following the signing of a letter of
intent between the Government of Indonesia and the IMF, although
this did not make clear for how long the moratorium should be
maintained and whether it referred to a moratorium on actual conversion
of forest cover or a moratorium on changing the status of forest
lands to allow planting. In February 2005, the Ministry of Forests
released two contradictory circulars to the local government.
One stated that the moratorium was still effective, while the
other stated that in order to optimise the use of forest land
for estate crops the Ministry would evaluate proposals for conversion
on their merits. The same split views can be discerned in the
way the Ministry has responded to the proposal to establish 1.8
m. ha. oil palm plantation in the heart of Borneo.
Excerpted
from: “Promised Land: Palm Oil and Land Acquisition in Indonesia
- Implications for Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples”,
by Forest Peoples Programme, Sawit Watch, HuMA and the World Agroforestry
Centre,
http://www.sawitwatch.or.id/images/Publikasi/Land%20Acquisition%20(English).pdf
index
-
Laos: Promoting tree plantations
Over
the last two years, Laos has seen a dramatic increase in foreign
direct investment for commercial tree plantations. The Lao Committee
for Planning and Investment shows 21 projects worth US$17.3 million
value were approved in 2005, which rose to 39 projects approved
with a value of US$458.5 million in 2006 and by February 2007,
9 projects had been approved and 16 were pending, with a total
value of US$342 million. To give a somewhat simplified overview:
Chinese investors are investing in rubber plantations in the north
of Laos, Vietnamese rubber companies have set up in the south
of Laos and four companies are establishing pulpwood plantations
in the central area (Japan's Oji Paper, Thailand's Advance Agro,
India's Grasim and Sweden-Finland's Stora Enso). The reasons behind
