OUR
VIEWPOINT
- Carbon neutral cheating
Being
“carbon neutral” seems to have become fashionable. The World Bank,
the Vatican, the World Olympics, the Football World Cup, the Body
Shop, the Rolling Stones, and a long list of celebrities proclaim
themselves to be totally or partially “carbon neutral”. Even Mercedes
Benz recently held in California what was described as “the world’s
first ever carbon neutral fashion week”! It is therefore understandable
that the New Oxford American Dictionary has proclaimed "carbon
neutral" as its Word of the Year for 2006.
One
must acknowledge that being “carbon neutral” sounds good –and
that some of those mentioned above honestly believe to be doing
the right thing- because it gives the impression that “neutral”
is synonymous to not emitting at all. However, the concept hides
a dangerous cheating game, where many corporate players are winning,
while the Earth’s climate is loosing.
Perhaps
the best way to “neutralize” this absurdity is through ridicule.
That is what people who created the Cheatneutral website did.
They invented –following the steps of the carbon offset inventors-
the concept of Cheat Offsetting. “Cheatneutral –they state- “offsets
your cheating by funding someone else to be faithful and NOT cheat.
This neutralises the pain and unhappy emotion and leaves you with
a clear conscience.”
Pretending
to “neutralize” carbon emissions is equally ridiculous. Carbon
neutral flights are perhaps the best way to show that this is
a cheating game. Planes do not fly on renewables; they run on
oil. Once burnt to enable the planes to fly, the carbon contained
in the fuel is released to the atmosphere, never to return to
its original storage place underground. Such carbon can never
be neutralized; it will add to the increasing amount of atmospheric
carbon that is destroying the Planet’s climate.
In
spite of that, the very imaginative carbon marketeers have thought
out a way of making money out of this. If individuals don’t want
to feel guilty or if companies wish to market themselves as being
“climate friendly”, there are an increasing number of companies
willing –in exchange for some money- to provide them with a way
out.
For
instance, the UK-based Carbon Neutral Company says that “Flying
is one of the fastest increasing causes of climate change, due
to the carbon emitted.” However, whoever may feel concerned about
that is immediately assured that it is possible to “Neutralise
your carbon emissions with our Carbon Neutral Flights, and make
your travel greener.” Depending on the flight distance, “neutralizing”
your flight has a cost ranging from £4.50 to £52.50. Apart from
freeing you from guilt, the company also provides buyers with
a “Certificate with a personal dedication if you wish”, a “Colour
map and information about 'your' projects”, a “Baggage tag made
of recycled leather” and a “Cream folder, tied with ribbon.” (this
is not a joke, it’s in Carbon Neutral’s website!)
Many
other companies have been created to benefit from carbon offsetting.
TerraPass, Native Energy, DriveNeutral, Climate Friendly, AtmosFair,
Climate Care, GreenSeat are some examples within a growing number
of companies offering such services.
The
means these companies use for “offsetting” are diverse, ranging
from efficient light bulbs to planting trees. Within this cheating
game, it is the latter that concern us most. A recent report (State
of the Voluntary Carbon Market 2007) explains that some projects
are more “charismatic” than others, adding that “Trees is one
area of carbon sequestration that everyone understands, even little
kids understand it… people get it.”
In
spite of their “charisma”, trees have proved to be problematic
and this had led some pro-carbon neutral institutions to publicly
disassociate themselves with such schemes: “Due to the many problems
with tree planting projects, the David Suzuki Foundation only
purchases offsets from energy efficiency and renewable energy
projects.” The Body Shop explains that “In 2006 we offset our
business air travel … by funding non-tree planting projects”.
The Cleaner Climate Company –that provides carbon neutral services
to Adobe- explains that it “does not plant trees” because “the
science behind carbon sequestration is not accurate enough” and
because it is “committed to having a positive impact on the local
communities” –thus implying that plantations have a negative impact.
The
above concern about offsets related to tree planting has not happened
by chance. It is the result of years of campaigning against large
scale monoculture tree plantations and documenting their impacts
and struggles against them. Additionally, some particularly negative
cases of carbon offset plantations (such as those of the Dutch
FACE Foundation in Ecuador and Uganda) have been investigated
and widely exposed, forcing carbon trading companies to seek for
less risky investments.
This
growing concern over plantations is very good news for local communities
that could have been impacted by carbon offset plantations. However,
it implies that the burgeoning carbon market is simply shifting
to other more “charismatic” areas. This scam needs to be exposed.
People must understand that being “carbon neutral” has exactly
the same value as being “cheat neutral” –zero- and that real global
action for drastically reducing fossil fuel emissions is urgently
needed –without cheating.
index
CLIMATE CHANGE
-
Coalition created to intensify actions
to prevent and respond to climate change
During
the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change held in Bali, Indonesia, in December
2007, a number of social movements and groups agreed to establish
a coalition called Climate Justice Now! in order to enhance exchange
of information and cooperation among themselves and with other
groups with the aim of intensifying actions to prevent and respond
to climate change.
Members
of the coalition include Carbon Trade Watch, Transnational Institute;
Center for Environmental Concerns; Focus on the Global South;
Freedom from Debt Coalition, Philippines; Friends of the Earth
International; Gendercc - Women for Climate Justice, Global Forest
Coalition; Global Justice Ecology Project; International Forum
on Globalization; Kalikasan-Peoples Network for the Environment
(Kalikasan-PNE); La Vía Campesina; members of the Durban Group
for Climate Justice; Oilwatch; Pacific Indigenous Peoples Environment
Coalition, Aotearoa/New Zealand; Sustainable Energy and Economy
Network; The Indigenous Environmental Network; Third World Network;
WALHI/ Friends of the Earth Indonesia; World Rainforest Movement.
On
December 14, the coalition issued the following statement:
“Peoples
from social organizations and movements from across the globe
brought the fight for social, ecological and gender justice into
the negotiating rooms and onto the streets during the UN climate
summit in Bali.
Inside
and outside the convention centre, activists demanded alternative
policies and practices that protect livelihoods and the environment.
In
dozens of side events, reports, impromptu protests and press conferences,
the false solutions to climate change - such as carbon offsetting,
carbon trading for forests, agrofuels, trade liberalization and
privatization pushed by governments, financial institutions and
multinational corporations - have been exposed.
Affected
communities, Indigenous Peoples, women and peasant farmers called
for real solutions to the climate crisis, solutions which have
failed to capture the attention of political leaders. These genuine
solutions include:
*
reduced consumption.
*
huge financial transfers from North to South based on historical
responsibility and ecological debt for adaptation and mitigation
costs paid for by redirecting military budgets, innovative taxes
and debt cancellation.
*
leaving fossil fuels in the ground and investing in appropriate
energy-efficiency and safe, clean and community-led renewable
energy.
*
rights based resource conservation that enforces Indigenous land
rights and promotes peoples' sovereignty over energy, forests,
land and water.
*
sustainable family farming and peoples' food sovereignty.
Inside
the negotiations, the rich industrialized countries have put unjustifiable
pressure on Southern governments to commit to emissions' reductions.
At the same time, they have refused to live up to their own legal
and moral obligations to radically cut emissions and support developing
countries' efforts to reduce emissions and adapt to climate impacts.
Once again, the majority world is being forced to pay for the
excesses of the minority.
Compared
to the outcomes of the official negotiations, the major success
of Bali is the momentum that has been built towards creating a
diverse, global movement for climate justice.
We
will take our struggle forward not just in the talks, but on the
ground and in the streets - Climate Justice Now!”
index
-
Gender issues and climate change
For
the first time in the history of the United Nations Convention
on Climate Change, a world wide coalition of women drafted position
papers with the women’s and gender perspective on the most pressing
issues negotiated at this Convention that took place in Bali,
Indonesia from 3 to 14 December. Gender and Climate Change (gender
cc), a global alliance of women for climate justice, presented
their position papers at a press conference during the Convention
and distributed hundreds of copies to government delegates.
One
of the key issues stated in those papers is that "Women are
the most affected by climate change, but they are also key catalysts
for positive change. Their knowledge and experience is fundamental
for a successful mitigation of climate change, as well as for
climate change adaptation".
They
demanded "a future climate regime designed in a framework
of gender equality and sustainability guidelines, instead of being
driven by dominant economic factors. To mitigate climate change,
the root causes must be addressed more fundamentally".
They
also demanded the "acknowledgement of the contribution of
women to forest conservation. Women should be included in any
forest protection mechanism, measures and compensation schemes.
Carbon trading, large hydro-projects and expansion of agro-fuels
are not the solution for climate change but rather increase deforestation".
Ulrike
Roehr, acting coordinator of the gender cc network stated: “We
need to question the dominant perspective focusing mainly on technologies
and markets, and put caring and justice in the centre of the measures
and mechanisms.” Roehr stressed that “The lack of gender perspectives
in the current climate process not only violates women’s human
rights -fundamental principles agreed on by the UN community-
but it also leads to shortcomings in the efficiency and effectiveness
of climate related measures and instruments.”
On
the last day of the Conference, the gender cc network presented
a strong Submission to the Plenary stating: "We urge you,
our governments, to ensure drastic emission cuts at source. You
have the power to do this here and now. People threatened by climate
change cannot wait.”
At
the same time, in a joint declaration with MADRE (see
http://www.wrm.org.uy/actors/CCC/Bali/Women_Agrofuels.pdf
), both gender organisations rejected agrofuels as a valid
way of reducing carbon emissions, and urged all parties and stakeholders
to support, among other things, the call of the UN Special Rapporteur
on the Right to Food, Jean Ziegler, for a five-year moratorium
on agrofuel development, which increasingly occupies agriculture
lands thus aggravating world hunger.
For
more information of the gender cc network contact: Ulrike Roehr,
gender cc -women for climate justice, roehr@life-online.de,
www.gendercc.net
index
-
The paper industry and the "business
of climate change"
For
many years, the pulp and paper industry has been trying to paint
itself green. No challenge is too big, it seems, for one of the
most polluting industries on the planet. Although paper production
is a major consumer of energy and a major cause of greenhouse
gas emissions, the latest challenge for the industry is to go
"carbon neutral". While reducing greenhouse gas emissions
may sound like something that we all welcome, this industry-dominated
discussion sidesteps the fact that the pulp and paper industry
is expanding rapidly, especially in the global South. It also
ignores the issue of massive overconsumption of paper in the North.
The best way of reducing the impact of the pulp and paper industry
is by reducing the amount of paper produced. But of course the
paper industry isn't interested in talking about this.
In
October 2007, the Forest Products Association of Canada (FPAC)
announced that by 2015 it would become Canada's first "carbon-neutral"
industry. The announcement came during a conference at a luxury
five-star hotel in the centre of Ottawa. Featuring key note speeches
from Keith Trent of Duke Energy and Clive Mather, CEO of Shell
Canada, the conference was titled, appropriately enough, "The
Business of Climate Change Conference".
FPAC
has entered into a partnership with WWF to "help guide the
initiative". FPAC claims to have already reduced its greenhouse
gas emissions by 44 per cent between 1990 and 2004. But this figure
of 44 per cent reduction in emissions is a fraud. It excludes
so-called "indirect emissions" - emissions produced
in generating the electricity which the industry uses.
A
2005 report includes both direct and indirect emissions and concludes
that the forest sector's greenhouse gas emissions in 2002 were
the same as they were in 1980. The report, produced by the Canadian
Council of Forest Ministers, notes that the forest sector is the
"largest single industrial energy user in Canada and has
significant GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions".
Another
more recent report produces data indicating that the situation
may be even worse. This report was commissioned by the FPAC, giving
the industry little excuse to ignore it. Written by the National
Council for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI), the report compares
emissions in 1990 with those in 2005. The report calculates direct
emissions from manufacturing, "indirect" emissions from
electricity generation, transport emissions and methane produced
from forest products in landfills. In 2005, according to NCASI,
the forest industry was responsible for a total of 53.3 million
tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, compared to 49.7 million
tonnes in 1990 – an increase of 7.2 per cent.
But
the NCASI report doesn't stop there. It introduces some creative
accounting in the form of "sequestration" and "avoided
emissions", giving the impression that things are not as
bad as they appear and in any case may soon get better. "Available
data demonstrate that GHG emissions along the forest products
industry value chain are largely offset by sequestration accomplished
in forest products," writes NCASI. Methane emissions from
rotting paper and other forest products in landfills are the largest
single source of greenhouse gases from the Canadian forest industry,
accounting for about 46 per cent of the industry's greenhouse
gas emissions in 2005. NCASI reassuringly explains that, "landfill
methane emissions attributable to Canadian forest products are
more than offset by net storage of carbon in forest products deposited
in landfills." Some forest products in landfill sites rot
quickly and release methane, others rot more slowly, releasing
methane more slowly. This, according to NCASI is "sequestration".
"Avoided
emissions", meanwhile, are changes that the industry could
make, such as producing more recycled paper or using combined
heat and power generation. The fact that the industry could also
avoid emissions by producing less paper isn't mentioned in NCASI's
report. Instead, NCASI anticipates an increase in consumption
of forest products.
In
September 2007, the Confederation of European Paper Industries
(CEPI) published a Carbon Footprint Framework. CEPI does not make
any grand claims about the industry becoming "carbon neutral".
Instead, the Carbon Footprint Framework presents a series of arguments
that companies can use to convince consumers that their product
is "carbon neutral". Not surprisingly, CEPI's arguments
are similar to those of its Canadian counterpart. For example,
CEPI proposes that the industry should argue that carbon is sequestrated
in both forests and in paper products: "Use the statement
that Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) ensures that carbon stocks
in forests stay stable or even improve over time and build on
this statement."
Part
of the reason that paper consumption is increasing is because
paper companies are constantly coming up with new uses for paper
and promoting ways of using more paper. When these paper products
end up in landfills, they rot and produce methane. Rather than
attempting to greenwash its activities with spurious arguments
about carbon sequestration, the pulp and paper industry should
stop producing rubbish.
By
Chris Lang. http://chrislang.org
index
-
Why carbon sink plantations have been hardly
implemented within the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism…so
far
In
the general public perception, trees are automatically associated
with environmental benefits, and there is consumer demand for
“cuddly” offset tree-related projects, as opposed to the type
of industrial emissions reductions that have dominated the Clean
Development Mechanism (CDM) market. It is estimated that some
40% of carbon credits generated in the voluntary market comes
from tree-related projects.
However,
forestry projects –and specifically plantations as carbon sinks--
have been largely absent from the “certified” –CDM- carbon market.
They still represent a tiny share of the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean
Development Mechanism trading program.
As
reported by Jutta Kill (WRM Bulletin 119), “in the three years
since the rules for afforestation and reforestation projects were
adopted, and after twelve rounds of baseline methodology submissions,
only one plantation, in China, has been registered as a CDM project.”
This
is good news for local communities struggling against monoculture
tree plantations, because if implemented, carbon sink plantations
would have been legitimized by the Kyoto Protocol as an alleged
“fix” to the increasing problem of climate change and would have
further increased the expansion of destructive plantations in
the South through subsidies channeled through the carbon market.
The
idea behind the concept of carbon sinks is that tree plantations,
through photosynthesis, could "offset" carbon dioxide
emissions by absorbing CO2. Many years ago, Larry Lohmann (1)
had warned that “The problem is how to calibrate a meaningful
and reliable ‘equivalence’ between the carbon sequestered permanently
in fossil fuel deposits, the transient CO2 in the atmosphere,
and the carbon sequestered temporarily as a result of any particular
tree plantation or national tree-planting programme. No one has
any idea how to do this. Nor is it likely they ever will.”
However,
the question is: why have tree plantations not been widely adopted
as an “offset” mechanism, when so many governments were very keen
in their promotion, offering cheap and abundant carbon credits
based on fast tree growth in Southern countries?
One
of the possible explanations is that, while the Kyoto Protocol
recognised afforestation and reforestation as valid activities
to remove greenhouse gas emissions, it established limitations
for offsets from so-called Activities in Land Use, Land Use Change
and Forestry (LULUCF): only the equivalent of 1% of base year
(1990) emissions per year per country were allowed. Additionally,
credits from such tree planting projects are temporary --a circumstance
that buyers perceive as complex and risky.
In
addition, carbon sink tree plantations are risky: they can burn
and release the carbon stored in the trees, as has happened recently
in South Africa and Swaziland (see WRM Bulletin Nº 123). At the
same time, such plantations face a number of legal problems related
to land titles, title to carbon, transfer of rights, implementation
and management contracts, and methodological troubles including
unavailable baseline data, an unclear definition of forest, "leakage",
etc. (2).
Even
more importantly, opposition to plantations at the ground level
and support from NGOs at the international level has certainly
had an impact. As stated by Economist Franck Lecocq and World
Bank officer Philippe Ambrosi in a 2007 report (3), “LULUCF projects
in the CDM faced . . . criticism from some stakeholders, notably
environmental NGOs. LULUCF projects, critics argued, would be
environmentally unsound, would flood the market with unsound credits,
and would lead to environmental catastrophes in the South because
they would favor fast-growing industrial plantations of alien
species over community-based, sustainable forest management. This
pressure led to a strict limitation of the scope of LULUCF projects
under the CDM in the Marrakesh Accords.”
Two
recent decisions however may yet attract more plantations to the
CDM. First, restrictions have been removed that required that
tree planting CDM projects could only happen on land that had
not been forested after 1990. This restriction, originally put
in place to guard against the CDM providing a perverse incentive
to cut down forests to replace them with CDM sponsored monocultures,
has recently been removed by the CDM Executive Board. With this
change, the CDM will become much more attractive to plantations
companies and the change “will make substantive areas used for
controversial large-scale plantation management eligible as CDM
projects.” [see WRM Bulletin Nº 119 at
http://www.wrm.org.uy/bulletin/119/CDM.html].
The second change has just been agreed at the climate talks in
Bali; it increased the size of tree planting projects that can
apply to the CDM under simplified procedures and with fewer requirements
to assess social and environmental impacts. This again will be
an additional incentive for plantation companies to try accessing
the CDM.
Another
point worth mentioning is that while only one tree plantation
project has been registered as a CDM afforestation and reforestation
project, plantations companies have discovered another route into
the CDM: as energy projects --rather than carbon sink projects.
V&M do Brasil, whose plantations in Minas Gerais, Brazil,
have taken this route and are now cashing in on the CDM without
being identified as tree plantation projects in the CDM. In the
case of V&M, even murder by its security guards of a peasant
inside the V&M plantations was not enough to revoke the CDM
registration [see WRM Bulletin No 119, at
http://www.wrm.org.uy/boletin/119/Brasil3.html].
So
far carbon sink plantations have been hardly implemented within
the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism, but recent trends
could make things change making it necessary to redouble awareness
and resistance.
(1)
see “The carbon shop: planting new problems”, at
http://www.wrm.org.uy/plantations/material/carbon.html
(2)
see “Markets for LULUCF Credits”, at
http://www.climatefocus.com/newspubs/downloads/
publications/LULUCF_markets.pdf
(3)
“The Clean Development Mechanism: History, Status, and Prospects”
(http://earthmind.net/labour/briefing/docs/reep-2007-cdm.pdf)
Article
based on comments from Jutta Kill, FERN, e-mail: jutta@fern.org,
Kevin Smith, Carbon Trade Watch, e-mail:
kevin@carbontradewatch.org, and Larry Lohmann, The Corner
House, e-mail: larrylohmann@gn.apc.org,
and on the referred documents.
index
COMMUNITIES AND FORESTS
-
Criminalized for Defending Nature
The
Summit of Communities Criminalized for Defending Nature was held
last November in Quito, Ecuador. Criminalization
is part of a strategy aimed at silencing any protest against the
extractive activities of transnational corporations within Ecuadorian
frontiers. It would seem that the next accused could be anyone.
It is sufficient to raise your voice against the irrationality
of global economy.
Most
of the cases arise in the last areas of tropical forest remaining
in the country, which is where mining and oil resources are also
located. At the Summit, circumstances were analyzed regarding
the increasing number of these cases of unjust criminalization
of indigenous and peasant populations in which opposition to national
and transnational corporate extractive activities occurs.
As
announced in the call to the Quito meeting, its intention was
to be a first step towards “making visible to national and international
public opinion the escalade of political, legal and para-legal
persecution of social leaders defending nature and life, in opposition
to an economist development model, violating rights” and it achieved
its purpose. In Ecuador, criminalization of peasants has occurred
in the North, in the subtropical zone of Intag and at present
in the South of the country, in the Amazon region.
Some
of the faces present at the event seemed to show relief, probably
because they saw they were not the only ones suffering from this
problem. The police, courts, investigations, enquiries,
sentences, judges, lawyers, attorneys, doctors. This world came
upon them all suddenly. Some have already become experts in law
and criminal procedures. This is not surprising when one individual
faces ten, fifteen and even twenty court cases.
This
is the case of Tarquino Cajamarca, from the Canton Limón Indanza
in the Amazon province of Morena Santiago, persecuted by Sipetrol,
which manages the Hidroabanico project; of Rodrigo Aucay from
El Pangui, also in the Amazon region of Zamora Chinchipe, persecuted
by the Canadian-Ecuadorian Mining company, Corrientes Resource;
or of Polibio Pérez, from the subtropical Intag area, who has
been persecuted by the Canadian mining company, Ascendant Copper.
During the event, testimonials were heard about these cases. The
greatest crime of these three community leaders, respected and
acknowledged in their place of origin, was perhaps to have been
among those opposing more energetically the activities of the
transnational corporations, affirm the representatives of human
rights organizations. Unfortunately, these are not isolated cases.
The
costs of defending these and other accused peasants are enormous,
both in economic terms and physical and psychological efforts.
Not only do they have to pay lawyers fees. The distances these
criminalized people have to cover to attend the hearings are enormous.
Many live in remote locations, where delinquency was practically
non-existent until the intervention of transnational corporations
in their area. These people are being made victims of a
development model, totally foreign to their way of life and understanding
of the world. Some have been in prison, others have had
to hide for days or weeks to avoid going to prison, far from their
families and daily activities. At the present time, Tarquino Cajamarca
from Limón Indanza has an order for arrest hanging over him.
Defence
is hard. In many cases, accusations are not made directly by the
transnational corporation or by persons openly related to it,
but by personnel paid to give false testimony and accuse the peasant
leaders of a common crime that they have not committed. During
some of the proceedings, identical testimonials made by different
witnesses showed evidence of the fact that they were merely repeating
a script that had been handed to them in advance. The Ecumenical
Human Rights Commission (CEDHU) and the Regional Foundation for
Human Rights Advisory Services (INREDH), both located in Quito,
possess full documentation on many of these cases. According to
a member of INREDH, the peasants are being linked to black lists.
Tools of the trade, such as computers are stolen off them as part
of a strategy to immobilize social rights organizations. CEDHU’s
Investigation Unit also reports numerous cases of aggression by
staff of the extractive companies or by personnel paid by these
companies, including death threats, persecution, physical aggression,
harassment, slander and many other actions.
However,
there is an increasing number of people accused of some common
crime they have not committed, making it necessary and urgent
to take measures. The number of community leaders and peasants
that are being criminalized by the companies in response to the
resistance put up by some communities to their oil, mining or
other extractive activities in tropical forest areas is alarming.
According to the CEDHU Investigation Unit, there are over 100
accusations and there are many more people accused, taking into
account that many of these processes are multiple, that is to
say, more than one person is accused. All of them are well aware
of the reason for their opposition to these economic activities.
“Who has benefitted from 30 years of oil exploitation? The streets
of the countries in the North are increasingly enhanced and illuminated,
while at Lago Agrio (an oil city in the Ecuadorian Amazon) the
streets are still in darkness and, even worse there are people
suffering from cancer and contaminated” says Humberto Cholango,
President of the Ecuarunari. Many peoples have stated that they
do not want to end up under similar conditions and for this reason
reject the extraction of natural resources in their areas. There
is clear resistance to mining in Intag, Pacto, El Pangui, Napo,
Machala and other places in the country.
“Mother
Earth gave birth to us peoples and for this reason, we must defend
her,” says Cholango. “But through non-violence,” specified Esperanza
Martinez, president of Acción Ecológica, an organization that
also took part in this meeting. “Non-violence is a much more powerful
weapon and, as defenders of nature, we cannot do things any other
way,” she added. This is in spite of the fact that sabotage
and terrorism, attacks against State security, rebellion and attacks
against public officials, apology of crime, unlawful association,
crimes against property such as theft and crimes against people
such as kidnapping, are among the crimes the various leaders and
peasants are accused of. With these common crimes, an attempt
is being made to mask grassroots resistance, while putting people
in prison to eliminate them or neutralize those who exercise more
opposition to the companies’ activities on their territories.
The paramilitary or professional murderers are hired to do the
dirty work. This is a situation that has repeatedly occurred in
Ecuador.
In
the subtropical area of Intag, four of the fifteen legal actions
launched by the Canadian mining company Ascendant Copper, were
concluded with absolution and resolutions in favour of the unjustly
accused community members. “Justice proved us right,” said Robinson
Guachagmira, who presented the case of Intag during the Quito
meeting. “I myself was eight days in prison, the worst days of
my life. My consolation was to think that hopefully this sacrifice
would contribute to the environment and the forests of my region
remaining intact for future generations.” More than 90 people
from the northwest area of Intag were surprised by this type of
arbitrary accusations.
According
to Dr. Raul Moscoso, a lawyer who is committed to social causes
and who attended the Summit meeting, “The acts of community resistance
are political acts.” Dr. Moscoso prepared and upheld the first
version of a draft Amnesty Law for this type of cases. The preparation
of this draft Amnesty Law and the establishment of an International
Network of people who have been affected to avoid those accused
from isolated and individual confrontation, were just some of
the solutions put forward to address the serious problem of peasant
criminalization, in addition to the proposal for joint mobilizations.
Through the Amnesty Law that was placed in the hands of Alberto
Acosta, president of the Constitutional Assembly and in those
of the Attorney General of the Nation on the same day as the Summit
meeting, it is hoped to protect people who take part in ongoing
or future acts of community resistance, It should be possible
to apply this general Amnesty to individual cases. It should also
include amnesty for civil responsibility.
Unfortunately,
this criminalization phenomenon is not an isolated one nor is
it exclusive to Ecuador. In other Latin American countries identical
conditions are prevailing, associated with other extractive or
agro-businesses, such as the case of extensive soybean plantations
in Paraguay, or oil palm plantations in Colombia, where the companies
also make indiscriminate use of complaints and accusations against
the Afro-Colombian peasant population, trying to silence any discordant
voice attempting to prevent the development of economic enterprises
on community land. Regarding mining, recently there has been a
case of criminalization of 7 indigenous Maya Mam members in Guatemala.
Identical news has come from this country: “Through this trumped-up
court case, the company intends to weaken the anti-mining social
movement that is struggling for its rights in the municipality
of San Miguel Ixtahuacan, while it manages to expand its exploitation
in the region and to socially disintegrate organizations opposing
mining,” according to Derechos en Acción in that country.
LAST
MINUTE NEWS: Over the past few days, the issue of criminalization
of social protests has become hot news in Ecuador. In fact, the
Prefect of the Amazon province of Orellana has been arrested,
accused of having organized a social protest culminating on 29
November in Tiguino and Dayuma. Twenty-two other people have been
arrested with her. Criminalized. Their demands: tarmac for
a highway, water and electricity supply, reparation of damage
to the environment and to health caused by oil extraction.
This has led to the province being placed in a state of emergency
and a curfew has been declared. For his part, president Correa,
at various public gatherings, referred along the same lines to
social protests, calling the ecologists, left wing, romantic,
childish and even terrorists, ignoring the fact that the protests
come from the population and not from the “ecologists.” Behind
the President’s anger is his desire to exploit mines and oil at
all costs, in a desperate search for resources and in spite of
having presented himself, on various occasions, as the “friend
of the indigenous population” who will be those most affected
in every way. The President does not seem to like legitimate social
resistance that has been generated by the 30 years of oil exploitation
in the Amazon, where poverty and abandon persist in spite of the
promises once made by the oil companies.
As
a conclusion we may note that the union of leaders and affected
peasants is needed on a national and international scale and a
response in accordance with the problem of criminalization by
State institutions to avoid the persistence of this situation.
Also, the guarantee of mechanisms – such as the Amnesty Law –
is needed to prevent transnational corporations and the State
itself from harassing the population. Anyone defending the environment,
tropical forests and human rights can be the next person accused
of sabotage, terrorism, theft, kidnapping, slander, arson, damages
or illegal association. But we should not forget that the defence
of rights continues to be everyone’s responsibility.
By
Guadalupe Rodriguez, Campaigner Tropical Forests and Human Rights,
Save the Forest, Latin America, e-mail:
guadalupe@regenwald.org,
www.salvalaselva.org,
www.activistas.nireblog.com
index
-
India: Implementation of Tribal Forest Rights
Act 2006
India's
Minister of Tribal Affairs promised on 7.12.2007 to the Indian
Parliament that the Scheduled Tribes and Other Forest Dwellers
(Forest Rights) Act 2006 which the parliament approved a year
ago, will be notified and implemented from 1.1.2008 onwards.
India
has around 90 million tribals, called mostly Adivasis, who have
lived mainly by sustainable indigenous forest life and whose rights
could be ensured by this Act. During the past 60 years around
30 million tribals have been displaced from their homes and livelihoods
for 'development' projects.
The new Act recognises for the first time that Adivasis and other
traditional forest communities who have not had earlier ownership
documents for their homes or cultivations, have legal rights to
live in the forest by their indigenous livelihoods.
But the implementation of the Act has been delayed for months.
It has been opposed even by TV advertisements, where children
are holding banners which demand that Adivasis should be displaced
from the forests to protect the forests.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and ruling Congress party's leader
Sonia Gandhi consider now whether India will now rapidly determine
countless indigenous forest dwellers to become displaced from
their home forest in 600 sanctuaries without clarity on their
rights - or will India make now first clear, compliant to its
new Act, what are their rights before defining whether and
how can they be displaced. To demarcate in a fortnight 'critical
wildlife habitats' for 600 sanctuaries would violate requirements
of any due procedure and displace possibly millions of people.
The Act provides a proper legal procedure for establishing critical
wildlife habitats so that resettlement from them can take place
only through communities' prior informed consent and mutually
agreed compensations, based on their rights being duly settled.
Also international biodiversity protection commitments require
similarly crucial role for the indigenous and local communities
and their involvement in sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity.
What will be decided now by the government of India before the
new year about possible further evictions of indigenous forest
communities, is still unclear. Forest and Biodiversity Program
of the Friends of the Earth International, WRM and various other
environmental organisations appealed 13.12.2007 therefore to the
Indian Prime Minister and to Sonia Gandhi, the chair of the governing
UPA Coalition, to ensure the due implementation of the Forest
Rights Act.
The process to legalise the traditional and customary rights to
Adivasi forest life, to forest homes, forest produce gathering
and subsistence farming livelihoods will be in any case full of
struggle as the bureaucracy, various elite groups and groups profiting
from sanctuary tourism would like to keep control over the forest.
Wide protests of forest rights movement groups, united through
Campaign for Survival and Dignity, continue in various states
around India against the forced evictions and to get the Act duly
implemented.
As the Act says, the recognition of indigenous forest dwellers'
rights is needed to correct the historical injustice done to them.
This is true not only in India but also regarding the whole
world.
By
Ville-Veikko Hirvelä, e-mail:
villeveikkoh@gmail.com
index
-
Mekong: MRC doing the wrong checking
Old proposals of damming the Lower Mekong River were revived recently.
According to press releases from the Thailand-based NGO TERRA,
the governments of Lao PDR, Cambodia and Thailand have granted
permission to Thai, Malaysian and Chinese companies, to conduct
feasibility studies for up to six large hydro dams on the lower
Mekong. Ten
years ago the projects had been dismissed for their huge cost
and potential environmental damage.
The international Mekong River Commission (MRC) has the obligation
to protect the Mekong, According to TERRA (see press releases
at http://www.wrm.org.uy/countries/Thailand/MRC
/Mekong_Mainstream_dams_media.pdf
and www.wrm.org.uy/countries/Thailand/MRC/Press_Release_12_Nov.pdf
) “Under the 1995
Mekong Agreement, the MRC is required ‘to make every effort to
avoid, minimize and mitigate harmful effects that might occur
to the environment… from the development and use of the Mekong
River Basin water resources’ (Article 7).” However, although at
the Mekong River Commission’s 6th Technical Symposium on Mekong
Fisheries (2003) researchers concluded that “any dam on the Mekong
mainstream . . . could be disastrous for fisheries...” the MRC
has remained notably silent, said TERRA, who views that “Although
the establishment of the MRC was hailed as a step towards overcoming
past antagonisms in the Mekong Region, it continues to be dominated
by the national interests of its member states, underpinned by
a focus on economic benefits at the exclusion of all else.”
Some
175 local and international organizations --including WRM-- signed
a letter to the Chief Executive Officer
of the Mekong River Commission Secretariat, and donor institutions
currently supporting MRC, expressing their concern over the projected
construction of six hydropower dams in the Lower Mekong
River as well as “the failure of the
international Mekong River Commission to uphold the 1995 Mekong
Agreement at this critical juncture”
(see full letter at http://www.wrm.org.uy/countries/Thailand/MRC/Letter_%2012_November.pdf
).
Instead of responding to the serious issues raised in the letter,
MRC’s move was to start checking if the signing organizations
were real. No doubt MRC has the right to do that, but it should
at least do it properly.
WRM received a message from MRC --signed by Lieven Geerinck--
saying that “the Mekong River Commission
takes the statements very seriously”, and that “The list of signed
organizations in attached document is quite important although
we have found some agencies of less relevance to the topic (e.g.
www.proyectogato.org).
We do believe in genuine communication. Can you confirm that your
organization has signed the attached letter?” (see
MRC message at http://www.wrm.org.uy/countries/Thailand/MRC/MRC_Message.html)
It
seems that MRC made a huge mistake in assigning Proyecto Gato
-for which Jan Cappelle signed- “less relevance to the topic”.
Had MRC bothered to google "Jan Cappelle" as well as
"Proyecto Gato" it would have not confused it with an
organization that looks after cats! (“gato” means “cat” in Spanish)
and would have learned about their direct involvement in the issue
of dams in the region.
But
that was not their only mistake. The press release and the media
briefing were clearly produced by TERRA – an organization that
has been working on this issue for many years- so MRC should have
replied to them and not write to some of the signatories to ask
whether they had signed or not or whether they were “relevant
to the topic” or not.
MRC
should act in line with its alleged seriousness and respond to
the demand to provide “some measure
of professional oversight and technical assessment of the proposed
dam projects” as well as give details of its "major
strategy on coordination of all kinds of hydropower projects in
the Mekong Basin to ensure a sustainable solution or alternative
measures are put in place".
What
has MRC done to ensure that dams that have been built in the Mekong
Region since 1995 did not infringe basic human rights or result
in environmental destruction? What has it done to address the
impacts of dams that it was involved in before 1995?
Civil organizations from the Mekong River are still waiting for
the response of MRC regarding these questions.
index
-
Thailand’s Community Forest Bill: Who does
the military government think it’s good for?
The
National Legislative Assembly (NLA), set up after the military
coup in Thailand last year and due to be disbanded following the
general election on 23 December, has, in its dying breaths, approved
the long awaited Community Forest Bill. Rather than consolidating
the constitutional rights of all communities to manage their forest
areas however, the NLA chose instead to exclude the rights of
communities who are living outside the “conservation zones” to
take part in forest management.
In
a denial of the truth that communities in Thailand now have 18
years of experience in community forest management since the logging
concession ban, most politicians and members of the NLA still
see villagers as forest destroyers. One-sided information, news
and analysis drawn from a superficial understanding of the problems,
has created fear and suspicion amongst the general public in Thailand.
This perspective only posits two ways to resolve problems of forest
destruction. The first is to declare conservation areas (article
3) in which people are not allowed to live. “Conservation zones”
mean “National park, Wildlife Sanctuary, No Hunting Zones, as
regulated by the respective laws or other areas which are watershed
or other areas which have environmental value and are required
to be conserved according to the ministerial regulations”. The
second is to pass laws which give monopoly power to the state
officials to issue fines for forest destruction.
Despite
these out of date perspectives, nowadays communities have learned
from the crisis of the degraded forests which created serious
problems for their livelihoods, in a context where agricultural
communities must depend on nature. Communities who were involved
in forest destruction in the past have come back together to preserve
the forest. It is clear that these communities can only manage
the forests effectively if society acknowledges their role and
if communities can determine their own economic, social and political
choices. On this basis they will be able to manage the forest
using both formal and informal mechanisms depending on the nature
of the areas and the condition of the group and the community.
A learning process is being promoted by several external groups
which includes learning about problems faced by the community
or learning between communities, including information and news
from outside the community.
Community
forest management is not best served by a legal approach which
seeks to determine the boundaries of various types of forest to
make it easier for the state to manage, by dividing management
zones according to different government units’ responsibilities.
On the contrary, the management of community forests does not
strictly distinguish between farm areas, housing areas, forest
areas nor does it strictly separate to whom the land and the forest
belong.
The
management of community forests in Thailand began with communities
inside and outside the conservation forests. This reflects a growing
awareness that the effective management of forests depends on
a learning and strengthening process within the community. Communities
have capacity and are ready to manage forests within a boundary
which has been assessed together with the community according
to their local social and environmental, economic and political
conditions.
The
concept in drafting the version of the Community Forest Bill proposed
by the people comes from drawing the lessons from community forestry
in practice. Community forest management deserves support to increase
the area of natural forest in Thailand instead of commercial tree
plantations in the national reserve forest areas, also to reforest
degraded forest areas, or public lands, and wetland areas that
are being destroyed for a variety of development projects. Community
forests should especially be allowed in conservation forest areas
which are at risk of destruction every day from illicit logging
with collusion of officers and wealthy individuals. These areas
have remained out of sight of the law and under the dark shadows
of corruption by state officials forever looking out for their
own profits. Did the NLA consider the fact that the communities
who are established inside and outside the conservation zones
have had an important role in protecting the nearby forests in
conservation zones and that many community leaders were murdered
in protecting the forest in many areas?
The
expansion of the conservation areas by the state into the remaining
fertile forests are precisely the areas that have been protected
by communities. Instead of rewarding communities with trust, the
draft Community Forest Bill has instead cut their rights to manage
the community forests, on the basis that they are settled outside
the conservation zone. The fact of the villages’ location outside
the conservation zone in almost every area is the result of negotiation
between communities and the state. People demanded that the government
exempt their long-established villages and farmlands from being
zoned as conservation areas, while conceding that their community
forest areas be designated within the government conservation
zones. This was done with good intention, people hoped that their
community forests could be well looked after jointly by the community
and the state. This matter caused considerable suffering for the
communities, having handed their community forests over to the
“conservation zones”, they found that the forest was destroyed
even more quickly. The community had no power to stop the loggers,
and at the same time were unable to use their forests.
This closing of social
space for managing forests by the communities will create more
severe conflicts between the state and communities. In the end,
Thai society and communities will see increased forest destruction
from the investors groups and government officials who are
ready to exploit their chances to gain profits from forest. In
future, communities must face severe poverty from being cut off
from the forest on which they depend. Who is going to take responsibility
for this after the military government sends the Community Forest
law to the old-boy politicians who will return after this weekend’s
election?
By
Sayamol Kaiyoorawong. The author has been working to support the
people’s draft of Community Forest Bill. She is currently the
Director of Environmental Awareness Building based in Trang province,
Southern Thailand. This article first appeared in Thai in the
Prachataam News Network in December 2007 (www.newspnn.com).
index
COMMUNITIES AND TREE
MONOCULTURES
-
Chile: What is not said about work in tree
plantations
Forestry
development in Chile –meaning monoculture tree plantations- is
marked by a great imbalance in the distribution of the monetary
wealth generated by this industry. The huge profits obtained -subsidized
by the Chilean people- enable the economic groups that own these
companies to generate enormous wealth, while the population does
not receive in exchange any real benefits from this activity.
The
economic damages produced by environmental disasters are suffered
by the affected people (in Río Mataquito, Río Cruces in Valdivia,
due to loss of water in planted areas, etc.). For their part,
the State and the companies turn a deaf ear on the damage caused
by their pine and eucalyptus plantations to the neighbouring and
mainly Mapuche communities.
The
conditions of forestry labour and forestry workers are hidden
from public opinion and invisible to the community. These workers
are unable to access the mass media that could reflect the many
difficulties they face, both regarding labour and their physical
and psychological health. The difference with workers from other
sectors such as mining and transport is that these have the capacity
to expose their problems because they generally live in urban
or populated areas and the mass media disseminates their views
more often as they are closer to the news. However, forestry
work generally takes place in distant areas that are hard to access
and usually restricted as they are private forestry property.
To this is added the workers scant organizational capacity as
they usually work for small contracting or sub-contracting companies.
The
loss of access to natural resources affected by tree plantations,
such as water -which is becoming increasingly scarce around the
plantations- is causing the migration of peasants and poor Mapuche
people to the cities. The new arrivals normally end up in urban
poverty belts and require assistance form the different social
welfare services.
Furthermore,
the millions of dollars of damages to highways and bridges caused
by the heavy traffic of trucks loaded with timber, fall directly
on small farmers, as they are prevented by these circumstances
from taking their products to consumer centres, very often loosing
them. The costs involved are thus not taken on by the companies
but by the Chilean population which provides the money to pay
for the repairs on the damaged highways.
The
salaries of forestry workers are based on production or yield,
measured in cubic metres. Sometimes the figures are altered, making
out smaller figures. This is a mechanism used by some Forestry
Service Companies to manipulate the information given by the workers
regarding salaries to be paid.
No
complete information is available about the total number of work-related
accidents because minor accidents (falls, sprains, injuries that
do not require major care) are frequent and treated outside the
official system, generally at private clinics or with private
doctors and are not reported. In this way they avoid increasing
the rate of work-related accidents and the cost of insurance.
The
labour regime keeps family heads away from their homes for 12
days, and are then given 3 days rest. This does not facilitate
a healthy family life and alters the maintenance of well constituted
homes.
Contact
with plantations recently sprayed with pesticides, herbicides
and fungicides, among others, and the companies’ scant concern
over regular health checks does not enable the workers to receive
due information on the risks they are exposed to.
The
clearest proof of the repercussions of this development model
is to be found in the high poverty rates and low human development
in regions mainly dedicated to forestry activities, such as the
eighth region and the province of Malleco in the ninth region
of Chile.
Of
course the forestry model produces wealth, in abundance, but the
question is what type of wealth and how much of it goes to benefit
those involved in its generation (forestry workers such as chainsaw
operators, strippers, loaders, foremen, operators, drivers, mechanics,
etc.) and how much only goes to fatten the coffers of unscrupulous
economic groups that benefit from us Chileans bearing the load
of the negative costs of this industry.
There
is no doubt that forestry work generates more poor people than
those who come out of poverty thanks to this activity. The excuse
most frequently-used by the government and the companies to promote
the forestry model in the poorest regions of Chile, is that it
creates jobs and therefore absorbs labour. However the facts show
the contrary as, due to the forestry industry, there has been
a loss of well paid, independent jobs, with workers putting in
hard work, but obtaining sufficient reward, being free and not
causing major impacts on the environment, such as the jobs generated
by artisan fishing, tourism and farming. In exchange, poorly paid,
slave-like and risky jobs have been created, while at the same
time generating considerable impacts on the environment.
What
type of jobs do we want? What type of employment do our leaders
want? It would seem that this is of no concern to them, as long
as they can keep their own jobs.
By:
Red de Acción por los Derechos Ambientales (RADA), e-mail:
radatemuko@googlegroups.com
index
-
Chile: The worthless CERTFOR tree
plantation certification label
Most
Chilean forestry companies’ plantations are certified, some by
FSC and the majority by CERTFOR (a member of PEFC). In round figures,
FSC has certified some 350,000 hectares, while CERTFOR has certified
approximately 1,600,000 hectares. Given the importance of CERTFOR
in Chile, it interesting to analyze it in greater detail.
The
first thing to draw our attention is the total number of hectares
certified by CERTFOR, equivalent to almost 80% of the total number
of hectares planted in Chile. That is to say that these certified
companies are mainly responsible for most of the environmental
problems documented in Chile at the level of plantations: destruction
of native forests, depletion and pollution of water resources,
negative impacts on soils, on flora and on fauna.
At
the same time, these monoculture tree plantations have resulted
in serious social impacts: the occupation of Mapuche territories,
repression, criminalization, migration, loss of jobs, poor working
conditions and health problems linked to
the use of agrochemical products.
It
should be noted that it was not an easy job to find information
on the certified companies. Eventually the major figures regarding
plantations set out in the following paragraphs were found, but
it was not possible to find details of the location and size of
the various plots of land as none of these companies provide this
type of information on their websites.
The
fact that only one economic group – the Arauco Group – should
possess over a million hectares of pine and eucalyptus plantations
certified by Certfor is also noteworthy. Bosques Arauco (289.000
ha), Forestal Celco and Forestal Cholguán (550,000 ha) and Forestal
Valdivia (252,000) are all companies forming part of this Group.
For
its part, the other large economic group – the Matte Group, owner
of Forestal Mininco- possesses between 550,000 and 600,000 hectares
certified by this same certification scheme.
On
top of the added impacts of these plantations (an aspect which
does not seem to be of any importance to the certifying companies),
these two major groups have a long track record of negative social
and environmental impacts. In an article published recently in
this bulletin (Chile: The short-lived lies of a “successful” forestry
model), we summarized many of these impacts. For example,
it was said that “during the season of the year when there is
the greatest demand for labour, in the commune of Los Sauces,
Province of Malleco in the South of Chile, the Mininco forestry
company gives work to only 19 people from the commune and pays
them very low salaries .... Like in other parts of the country,
their enormous profits are expressed in a loss of quality of life
for the local people. Thirty-three point eight per cent of the
population live in either poverty or dire poverty.”
Furthermore,
“Agricultural activities declined 22 % over the past 10 years,
gradually forcing over 1,400 people to migrate to towns... One
of the reasons is the lack of water as the plantations have dried
up the soil. Every summer the municipality has to deliver water
by truck for domestic consumption.”
“In
addition to the lack of water is the problem of agrochemical contamination.
The neighbours in the rural sectors of Porvenir Bajo and Porvenir
Alto suffer from serious health problems due to plantation spraying
by the Comaco forestry company. Agrochemicals, in particular herbicides
(glyphosate and simazine), are mechanically or manually sprayed
before plantation and at various times during the first stages
of growth of the trees, polluting rivers, brooks and irrigation
channels.”
Additionally,
the workers that manage to obtain employment in these certified
plantations face problems. An article published recently in the
press (15/11/07) reported that “forestry workers in the Province
of Arauco, in Curanilahue, accuse Forestal Arauco of intervention
in the trade unions, of not fulfilling its commitments and obligations
and of seriously impoverishing the Province.” More serious still,
is the fact that a movement launched in March in the Arauco area
“initiating negotiations between outsourced workers and the forestry
holdings (Bosques Arauco, Forestal Mininco) ... ended with one
dead worker.”
These
companies are also responsible for criminalizing the opposition
and for the lengthy prison sentences imposed on people who oppose
their plantations. The exception happened on 15 June 2007, when
for the first time a forestry company –Mininco- lost a court
case lodged by a Mapuche community member, José Cariqueo. However
it should be noted that for five years José Cariqueo suffered
prison and persecution due to Mininco’s false accusations.
In
sum, on granting its certification label to these companies, CERTFOR
is granting itself a well deserved label: its death certificate.
Article
based on information from: Mapuexpresss. Trabajadores Forestales
denuncian a Empresa Arauco del Grupo Angelini, 15/11/07
http://www.mapuexpress.net/?act=news&id=2185
Pehuén.
Mapuche wins court case against the forestry company, Mininco,
15/6/07
http://www.pehuen.org/mapuche-gana-juicio-forestal-mininco
El
Quinto Infierno. A wide range of activities in Santiago and regions
in support of CUT mobilization.
http://www.elquintoinfierno.cl/2007/08/28/
amplia-gama-de-actividades-en-santiago-y-regiones-
por-movilizacion-de-cut/
Data
on certified plantations, http://www.pefc.org/
y http://www.certfor.org/
index
-
Papua New Guinea: Woodlark’s islanders demand
a halt to oil palm plantations
The
85,000 hectares territory of Woodlark Island in Papua New Guinea’s
Milne Bay Province is almost totally covered by dense lowland
rainforest -- lowland dry forest on the
eastern side and dense jungle on the western side --which is home
to several endemic species. Woodlark Island holds unique ebony
species which include dark/black, grey and grey/black varieties,
- there are no other forests of this type in the world.
Most
of the 6,000 island’s inhabitants depend on the available natural
environment as well as the marine resources, doing gardening --they
mainly plant yams, taro, sweet potatoes, and bananas- as well
as fishing and hunting --that play a smaller, though important,
role in their diet.
Now
the island faces the threat of being swallowed by a proposed 60,000
hectare oil palm estate, which is part of a project by the Malaysian-based
company Vitroplant Ltd. The project also includes the building
of an oil palm methyl ester plant in the province’s capital city
of Alotau. Woodlark will feed the plant with the palm oil beans
grown in the extensive monoculture oil palm plantations
to be converted into biodiesel for domestic consumption and export.
The
oil palm plantation establishment will be situated on approximately
60,000 ha. Most of the project would be developed on governmental
land and the rest as village oil palm, i.e. oil palm on customary
land.
The
company has submitted an application for an Environmental Permit
which is still pending of awarding. According to the application,
they have stated that all necessary requirements had been fulfilled,
including consultation with the landowners.
However,
George Laume, from CELCOR INC. Friends of the
Earth-PNG, received reports from concerned people from
the island regarding the major palm oil project and recently he
gathered that there is still lack of consultation and communities
are opposing this development.
Last
month’s Jeremy Hance report (1) said that “according to the islanders,
they were never consulted regarding the plans until after the
government had already granted the lease to Vitroplant Ltd.” Dr.
Simon Piyuwes is an island born medical doctor who has become
an advocator of the struggle against the oil palm plantation.
Hance quotes Piyuwes’s “several reasons why Vitroplant Ltd.’s
plans are unacceptable to the islanders. He states that the logging
would destroy the island’s endemic ebony, cause extinctions of
rare species, and threaten marine life by waste from the project.
Not only does he foresee environmental disaster, but also disintegration
of the native culture, stating that the company’s plans would
bring ‘socially unacceptable behavior on the island’. And that
all the islanders would eventually be threatened with ‘starvation’
since ‘there will be no space for gardening and hunting’. Dr.
Piyuwes admits that while there may be some economic and infrastructure
benefits to the island, he believes the disadvantages far outweigh
the advantages.”
A
project heralded by its promoters as crucial to the island’s development,
is perceived by many as a threat for Papua New Guinea. Recently,
more than one hundred islanders and supporters traveled to the
Milne Bay provincial government headquarters in Alotau, to demand
a halt to the palm oil project and claim their land back.
They
know that the Vitroplant project --that implies
logging-- will cause the waters to become turbid. This, in turn,
will imply the death of coral reefs fringing the Island for lack
of sunlight. The reefs and fishing grounds, fishery nurseries
(mangroves) as well as food producing areas for the island will
be affected. Hunting and foods gathered from the bush will be
lost. The people of Woodlark Island will become dependent
on imported, processed food for their sustenance and will be forced
to work on oil palm plantations to survive.
Oil
Palm is labor intensive and the current population of approximately
6000 will not be able to bear the load of an oil palm plantation
of this scale. A work force will need to be imported on to the
Island to meet the demand of labor further exacerbating social
and environmental pressures.
It
has been suggested in the environmental plan that this will bring
employment to other Papua New Guineans. Papua New Guinea is one
of the most culturally diverse countries in the world
with more than 850 different spoken languages. This means
there are many cultural differences within relatively small distances.
An introduction of outside groups will place immense pressure
on the local population.
Growing
from the grassroots, a halt to oil palm plantations may change
the course of the country. Building on the awareness, determination,
and drive of Woodlark’s islanders, that change could be realised.
Article
based on information provided by George Laume, CELCOR INC. FoE-PNG,
e-mail: glaume@celcor.org.pg,
www.celcor.org.pg, and
(1) Biofuels versus Native Rights: Planned logging of Woodlark
Island for biofuels opposed by islanders and scientists, Jeremy
Hance, special to mongabay.com. November
12, 2007,
http://news.mongabay.com/2007/1112-hance_woodlark.html
index
-
Swaziland: Woodmark and SAPPI ignore
the lessons from a neighbouring farmer
Peter
George is a farmer. Or, to be more accurate, he used to be a farmer.
He bought Elangeni Farm in the cool highveld of Swaziland in the
mid-1970s. He grew vegetables along with some eucalyptus and acacia
trees. He drove twice a day to the local market to sell his cabbages.
He had a few sheep, chickens, two cows and a half-blind sheep
dog. After a few years he started a small fish farm, selling to
local restaurants and hotels. He built his own house, got married
and started a family.
When
he bought the farm, there was plenty of water from the streams
flowing down the slopes next to the farm. In the mid-1980s, the
Usutu Pulp Company started planting the hills with pine plantations.
George was forced to stop farming when the streams on his farm
dried up. In 1988, the South African pulp and paper company SAPPI
took a majority share in the Usutu pulp mill and the associated
plantations.
By
1990, the water supply “had slowed to nothing and the house supply
was well down," he explains. At first he thought that it
might be caused by a drought. "But when the streams didn't
flow even in the rainy season, there had to be a good reason,"
he says.
In
November 2007, I was part of a WRM team that visited Swaziland.
Together with colleagues from Friends of the Earth, who were in
Swaziland for their annual meeting, we visited SAPPI's stinking,
polluting Usutu pulp mill. The water in the stream flowing past
the mill was jet black from the pulp mill's effluent.. "Sometimes
the water is so hot you can't put your hand in it," says
Thuli Makama of Yonge Nawe (Friends of the Earth Swaziland).
Peter
George invited us to visit his farm the following day. When we
arrived, workers were busy cutting down eucalyptus plantations
on his land that had burned earlier in the year. Since the streams
dried up, eucalyptus is one of the few crops he can grow. SAPPI's
plantations near George's farm were black from fire - SAPPI lost
about seven per cent of its plantations in Swaziland to fires
this year.
We
drove around the farm and George showed us where the Usutu Pulp
Company had planted pines trees right through the streams which
had supplied his farm with water. SAPPI started clearcutting the
plantations in 2002 and since then the streams have started flowing
again, although it took 18 months for one of the streams to recover.
SAPPI has not replanted right up to the streams, but neither had
it kept 30 metre-wide strips along the streams, which are required
under Swaziland's regulations. In one place the trees were little
more than 10 metres from a stream.
He
pointed out the remains of a wall to us, all that is left of a
homestead, now completely surrounded by the rows of SAPPI's pine
trees. The hills "had been pastures and plough-lands for
the local people as long as anyone could remember", George
says.
In
1994, George told us, he wrote to SAPPI complaining about the
lack of water on his farm. Seven months later, SAPPI replied,
promising that they would look into the problem. SAPPI told George
that the research would take two years. He's still waiting for
the results of the research.
By
2004, he had started a legal process against SAPPI. George points
out that it isn't just his land that dried out. "Other people's
streams had dried out and it was not always drought that was to
blame," he says.
In
June 2006, the Soil Association's Woodmark certified SAPPI's Swaziland
plantations as well managed under the Forest Stewardship Council
system. Peter George met Woodmark's assessment team in March 2006.
Woodmark's public summary of the assessment acknowledges that
the meeting took place but gives few details. The public summary
mentions that streams dried up but adds that they are now "back
to normal". It fails to mention that for 12 years there was
hardly any water on the farm. "The issue regarding the reduction
of water flow caused by the planting of trees and the subsequent
claim is 'sub judice' and is therefore [sic] under judicial consideration,"
comment Woodmark's assessors in the public summary.
Under
the sub judice (from the Latin, "under judgement") rule
in British law it can be an offence to publicly discuss current
or upcoming court cases. The rule is intended to protect the right
of defendants to a fair trail, but in this case Woodmark is hiding
behind the sub judice rule to prevent legitimate debate.
Woodmark
seems to want Peter George to just go away. When Woodmark's assessors
revisited Swaziland in 2007 for their annual audit of SAPPI's
plantations, they did not invite Peter George to their stakeholder
meeting. Neither did they visit his farm.
George
wrote to Woodmark in August 2007 pointing out that "SAPPI
holds no planting permit for the blocks in question nor did they
apply for one." George has a letter from SAPPI stating that
the company has no planting permit for Block X - the land above
Elangeni Farm. "In my opinion", George wrote to Woodmark,
"SAPPI ought not to receive certification until this matter
is settled. If such certification has been awarded, I will take
steps to challenge it." Woodmark has not replied to George's
letters.
The
problems Peter George faces on his farm in Swaziland are not unique.
WRM has reported many examples from the global South of streams
and water supplies drying up after industrial tree plantations
have been established. Instead of ignoring Peter George, Woodmark's
"experts" should have the humility to realise they have
a lot to learn from him.
By
Chris Lang, http://chrislang.org
index
- The
European Union and agrofuels: Making the unsustainable “sustainable”
European
politicians want to validate the accelerated introduction of agrofuels
into the EU countries establishing supposedly sustainable criteria.
However, before making full assessments, consulting with the populations
involved and establishing these criteria, the obligatory objectives
or percentages of agrofuels to be mixed with fossil fuels have
already been fixed. The percentages are so high (5.75% until 2010
and 10% until 2020) that many analyses claim that they are impossible
to attain.
An
attempt is being made to present a purely commercial activity
as the solution to real and serious environmental and climate
change problems. Irremediable social problems are created among
the extremely vulnerable populations in the producer countries
of the South. Palm, soybean, sugar cane
and other crops continue to expand at the expense of tropical
forests and other fundamental ecosystems. The local indigenous,
Afro-Latin American and peasant populations are being seriously
affected and dispossessed of their lands and way of life.
Furthermore,
the economic sustainability of some industries would seem to depend
on a continuous threat to climate and planetary stability. Presently,
the environmental and social impacts of raw material production
for agrofuels in the countries of the South, in response to demand
from the countries of the North, have connotations which are a
matter of serious concern to those affected in communities and
social and environmental organizations. Not only due to current
events, but also because of the possibility that this state of
affairs will multiply in an exponential and irremediable way.
The prices of land and food are increasing considerably. In order
to produce agrofuels, tropical forests are being felled, affecting
their biodiversity and the way of life of those inhabiting these
ecosystems. Additionally, large amounts of agrochemicals are needed,
polluting the population, soils and waters.
The
European Union is including among its regulations the condition
of sustainability of raw material imports
for agrofuels imported from the countries
of the South, but presently it has no system guaranteeing enforcement
of social and environmental standards. What is more, no
social and environmental certification label
currently being applied in other similar fields has the initially
desired results. On the contrary, the system taken as a reference,
the well-known Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)
forestry certification label, has given
rise to numerous complaints (1) ranging from irregularities
regarding environmental aspects to serious violations of human
rights, made possible by the critical defects in the certification
system structure. On-going initiatives to certify agrofuel sustainability
have a predominant participation by governments and other first
world institutions, companies and organizations favouring their
interests, but that do not consider the present impacts or the
concerns of social organizations in the South, or of the potentially
affected populations. This is pure “green wash.”
All
this leads to the following question: “What sustainability are
you talking about?” If the industrialized nations develop sustainability
schemes without the intervention of producer countries, the reality
and the socio-environmental priorities of the latter will not
be reflected. What is more, in many cases, these priorities
are unclear, even within the producer countries themselves. In
most cases their policies are strongly influenced by transnational
companies and policies supporting them, such as those of the World
Bank, IBD, international cooperation agencies, etc. For this reason
it is the small farmers, the local population and the poorest
people who run the risk of paying all expenses, as at present.
The
countries of the North have the obligation to consider the impacts
of their agrofuel trade policies on other parts of the world,
namely in the countries of the South. But nobody wants to give
anything up: the companies do not want to give up a growing business
that promises extraordinary benefits; government agendas appear
to be dominated by the companies that are beneficiaries or potential
beneficiaries in this multimillionaire business succeeding the
oil industry, at least with the flippancy with which laws and
regulations are being established (though with European frontiers
well closed and increasingly closed, heaven forbid that the innumerable
displaced people in the Global South should attempt to get into
“the home”); the consumers do not want to give up their standard
of living which implies an excessive use of energy in their daily
lives, including individual transport, responsible for 20% of
global emissions of CO2.
Nobody
seems to be suggesting serious and really effective policies for
energy saving, nor a drop in the current excessive and exaggerated
levels of consumption. It is significant that any of the Latin
American countries where a major part of agrofuel commodity
production is planned, has significantly lower levels of
CO2 emissions.
In
order to clarify all these contradictions, over 190 organizations
from the North and South are asking for a moratorium of 5 years
for agrofuels (the moratorium text is available in several languages.
Text and sign-ons at www.econexus.info).
Recently the UN special rapporteur on food security, Jean Ziegler,
also alluded in his report to the need for a moratorium.
Presently,
there is no common internationally accepted and agreed on by consensus
definition of “sustainable agrofuels.”
Therefore politicians, citizens of the European Community, let
us be honest: What are you talking about when you speak of sustainability
for the production of agrofuels? Does it mean that the producer
companies are always ensured of a supply of raw material for the
production of fuels such as agro-diesel and agro-ethanol? Does
it mean maintaining an ostentatious and wasteful way of
life? Perhaps it would be more just and human to be
concerned about the indigenous and peasant people in the
Global South being ensured for ever of their environment and in
particular of the last tropical forests left, their food sovereignty
and way of life.
Excerpted
and adapted from the article of Guadalupe Rodríguez (see full
text at
http://www.wrm.org.uy/subjects/biofuels/European_Union_agrofuels.html
), Campaigner Tropical Forests and Human Rights, Save the
Forest, Latin America, e-mail: Guadalupe@regenwald.org,
www.salvalaselva.org
(1)
See http://www.fsc-watch.org
