OUR
VIEWPOINT
-
Forests, agrofuels and policies of hunger
World
hunger is a source of ever greater concern for those who have
yet to suffer from it, and ever greater suffering for those who
already do – and who are growing in numbers year after year. Yet
the policies being formulated in the global power centres not
only do little to solve the problem of hunger, but actually tend
to even further exacerbate it.
A
clear example of this point is the promotion of agrofuels. Under
the guise of environmental protection (through the replacement
of climate change-provoking fossil fuels) and the green label
of “bio” fuels, millions of hectares of land are being turned
over to the production of food… for automobiles.
This
policy has severe impacts on the South. On the one hand, basic
food crops like corn are no longer being raised to feed humans,
but instead to produce ethanol. On the other hand, lands that
once produced food have been taken over by sugarcane or soybean
monocultures to produce agrofuels. In both cases, the result is
a dwindling supply of foodstuffs, leading to market speculation
and soaring prices.
Of
course, agrofuels are not exclusively (nor primarily) responsible
for rising food prices. But they are clearly one more factor that
contributes to the worsening of an already serious situation,
that of growing hunger and malnutrition in the countries of the
South.
Rising
food prices have already led to public protests and rioting –
triggered by despair – in many parts of the world, and have also
spurred the organization of powerful movements working to promote
food sovereignty.
However,
there is another process linked to food production that remains
relatively ignored, and needs to be incorporated into this struggle:
the destruction of forests.
The
expansion of agrofuel crops is taking place in two different settings:
on agricultural lands and on forested lands. In the first case,
food crops are being replaced by agrofuel crops. In the second,
forests are being destroyed so that the land they once occupied
can be used to grow crops for fuel production (oil palm, soybeans,
sugarcane).
The
second case – the destruction of forests – is rarely perceived
as an impact on food security and food sovereignty, for the simple
reason that few people are aware of the food-producing capacity
of forests. Those who are aware of this capacity are the millions
of human beings who live in the forests, and for whom the forests
provide most of their means of survival, the chief of which is
food. Thus every hectare of forest that disappears means taking
the food from the mouths of these peoples, whether the land is
being taken over to produce agrofuel crops or for any other activity
that causes the destruction of forests (tree plantations for pulp
production, commercial logging, hydroelectric dams, shrimp farming,
etc.). The result: hunger and malnutrition in communities that
were once well nourished by the food provided by the forests.
Hunger
– whether in the forests, the countryside or the city – is not
an inevitable phenomenon. Rather, it is the result of the same
policies and economic interests that are at the root of other
crises, such as climate change, biodiversity loss, deforestation,
the disappearance and contamination of water supplies, the destruction
of soils, and many others. At the same time, all of these crises
further exacerbate the problem of the lack of access to food among
the poorest and most vulnerable.
The
misnomered “development” policies promoted for decades by international
institutions like the World Bank, IMF, FAO, WTO and others have
more than amply proven to be socially and environmentally disastrous.
The only thing that they have succeeded in “developing” are the
profits of large transnational corporations, at the expense of
human hunger and environmental destruction. The model they have
imposed on us is crumbling. It is time for them to admit it, and
to make room for the proposals of social movements.
index
COMMUNITIES AND FORESTS
- Brazil: Sugarcane
for agrofuel poses a growing threat to highly biodiverse ecosystem
Agrofuels
are increasingly drawing words of warning, protest and condemnation
from such disparate voices as high-level United Nations representatives
like FAO Director-General Jacques Diouf and Special Rapporteur
on the Right to Food Jean Ziegler, statesmen like Fidel Castro,
and social organizations in both the North and South (see notes
1 and 2). Nevertheless, plantations of crops raised specifically
to produce fuel continue to spread.
In
Latin America, Brazil is undoubtedly at the forefront of this
trend. Energy agreements signed with the United States and Chile
last year and recently with Germany have consolidated Brazil’s
position as an ethanol producer.
Plantations
of sugarcane for fuel production now occupy some six million hectares
of land in Brazil, primarily in the southeast, in the states of
Sao Paulo, Minas Gerais and Goiás, and also in the central states
of Mato Grosso and Mato Grosso do Sul.
The
region where sugarcane monoculture is now exerting the greatest
pressure is the Cerrado, a sprawling woodland savannah biome that
is home to a vast wealth of biodiversity. The Cerrado covers two
million square kilometres of land and is bordered by the Amazon,
Atlantic Forest and Pantanal regions. It was traditionally used
for large-scale cattle farming, but in recent decades sugarcane
plantations have been gradually taking over and converting large
areas of the Cerrado into sugarcane fields. According to figures
from a study to be published in June by the Brazilian NGO Instituto
Sociedade, População e Natureza (Society, Population and Nature
Institute, ISPN), there are 152,000 hectares of the Cerrado designated
as conservation areas by the government that are currently covered
by monoculture sugarcane plantations.
“Any
monoculture provokes a loss of biodiversity,” stresses Nilo D'Avila,
the coordinator of the study, adding: “Sugarcane plantations alter
the biochemical composition of the Cerrado, especially the acidity
of the soil, which is very high in the region.” Thus, on top of
the deforestation that results when land is taken over to establish
plantations, sugarcane monoculture techniques attempt to “correct”
this acidity with lime, which has killed off numerous fruit species
that had adapted to the Cerrado’s highly acidic soil.
The
greatest tragedy of the Cerrado is the fact that its rapid destruction
has been largely ignored. It is the second most threatened biome
after the Amazon region, but ranks first in terms of the threat
posed by sugarcane plantations.
A
report published by the Latin American regional office of the
IUF trade union federation (3) reveals that in the last 40 years,
the Cerrado has lost one half of its surface area as a consequence
of the spread of sugarcane plantations, among other activities.
If this trend continues, this ecosystem will have disappeared
by the year 2030.
Big
agribusiness has attempted to build an “eco-friendly” façade around
the commodity of sugarcane by using the term “biofuels”. But that
façade is crumbling, and there are now some who have begun to
call these products what they really are: necrofuels, the fuels
of death.
(1)
Position Paper of the Global South, at:
http://www.wrm.org.uy/subjects/agrofuels/Quito_Manifest.html
(2)
Call for a Moratorium, at:
http://www.wrm.org.uy/actors/BDC/SBSTTA/Press_Release_26_6.html
(3)
Caña de azúcar devasta el “cerrado”, Silvia Adoue, Radioagencia
NP, at:
http://www.rel-uita.org/agricultura/cerrado.htm
index
-
Burma: Cyclone proved the failure of “development”
based on mangrove destruction
In
the first weekend of May, a cyclone ravaged Burma. Cyclone Nagris
hit the Irrawaddy delta with winds reaching 190km/h. However,
most havoc was played by a sea surge that came with the storm:
a wave up to 3.5m high swept away and inundated half the houses
in low-lying villages. People couldn’t flee and figures of dead
people are estimated at more than 100,000.
The
storm was strong indeed, but the root of such an enhanced devastation
can be traced back in the country’s so called “development programmes”
in the industries of tourism and shrimp farming, that implied
the destruction of formerly lush mangroves.
The
importance of mangroves as buffering zones that protect inhabited
areas from storms and big waves is widely acknowledged. Mangroves
are salt-tolerant and grow along coastlines, rivers and deltas
where the saltwater and freshwater meet, often covering a few
kilometers inland. They form a dense protection barrier of intertwining
roots, branches, and trunks that dissipate the force of storm
surges.
Whenever
coastal zones are being deprived of their mangrove protection,
the damage of big waves is much more dramatic. The BBC reported
several studies that reveal the importance of mangroves to human
lives and settlements: a study of the 2004 Asian tsunami found
that areas near healthy mangroves suffered less damage and fewer
deaths. Also a study published in December 2005 said healthy mangrove
forests helped save Sri Lankan villagers during the Asian tsunami
disaster, which claimed the lives of more than 200,000 people.
Researchers from IUCN compared the death toll from two villages
in Sri Lanka that were hit by the devastating giant waves --while
two people died in the settlement with dense mangrove and scrub
forest, up to 6,000 people lost their lives in a nearby village
without similar vegetation (1).
According
to Mangove Action Project (MAP), the loss of mangroves started
in Burma under British colonial rule, “in order to clear space
for rice production. Since that time, mangrove loss has continued;
during WWII [Second World War] to satisfy military demands, and
more recently, for fuel wood and unsustainable developments, such
as industrial shrimp aquaculture and urban expansion.” MAP reports
Burmese researchers revealing that “during a period of 75 years
(1924-1999), 82.76% of the mangroves of the Irrawady were destroyed.”
“The
conversion to large-scale shrimp and fish farms is the most significant
threat to mangroves world wide, and other pressures include tourism
developments and rising populations. This is worrisome to those
who believe that global warming and rising sea levels will cause
more frequent and intense storms, and that the loss of mangroves
will make the coastlines more susceptible to damage.” (2)
The
December 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami that ravaged several Asian
coasts, the 1999 Super Cyclone that hit the coast of Orissa (India)
killing more than 10,000 people are sad memories recalled by the
recent disaster in Burma, especially because they could have been
“greatly lessened and much loss in life and property damage could
have been averted if healthy mangrove forests had been conserved
along the coastlines of the Irawaddy Delta," said Alfredo
Quarto, MAP's executive director.
The
cause of the evil is well known by national and international
authorities. An FAO officer has acknowledged that "There
are very limited areas that you would describe as pristine or
densely covered mangrove in the Irrawaddy area" and though
there are some efforts to rehabilitate and replant mangroves,
the loss rate is quite substantial still. The officer said that
"During the 1990s, they lost something like 2,000 hectares
each year, which is about 0.3% being lost annually. But that does
not give you the whole picture because the majority of these tidal
habitats are being degraded, even if they are not being completely
destroyed." (1)
How
many other lives should be lost in order to gain the political
will to change the present “development” policies that have so
dramatically proved to be unsuccessful? No development is possible
on the long run when it implies destroying our home, our nature.
Burma’s people can sadly tell you that.
Article
based on information from: (1) “Mangrove loss 'put Burma at risk'”,
Mark Kinver, BBC News,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7385315.stm; (2)
Press Release: “Destruction of Mangrove Forests Increased Devastating
Impact of Cyclone Nagris”, MAP.
http://www.mangroveactionproject.org
/news/current_headlines /press-release-destruction-of-mangrove-forests-increased-devastating-
impact-of-cyclone-nagris/
index
-
Paraguay: Forced contact brought illness
and death to indigenous man
Parojnai
was his name. He was from the Ayoreo-Totobiegosode indigenous
people who inhabit the Chaco forest stretching from Paraguay to
Bolivia and Argentina, south of the Amazon basin.
Parojnai
Picanerai, his wife and their children had managed to live in
the Chaco forest (located in Paraguay), without contact with the
outside world despite increasing encroachment onto their territories.
Though the Paraguayan law acknowledges the Ayoreo’s right to own
the lands which they have traditionally inhabited, their forest
is being sold to private owners and rapidly cleared by speculators
and ranchers for logging and later on for cattle raising.
In
1979 and 1986, the American fundamentalist New Tribes Mission
organized “manhunts” to force large groups of Ayoreo Totobiegosode
out of the forest. Later on, harassment and bulldozing of
the Chaco forest continued with regular incursions. Ayoreo communal
life in villages was disrupted and they had to move camp to live
in hiding inside the forest, abandoning their huts and leaving
behind the crops they had planted as well as valued possessions
such as cooking pots and tools.
Finally,
tired of the lonely life and of living on the run, Parojnai and
his family eventually gave up and made contact in 1998. Survival
International brings us his testimony in that moment: “We ran
from one place to another. It looked like the bulldozer was following
us. I had to leave my tools, my bow, my rope to run faster… We
thought that the bulldozer had seen our garden and came to eat
the fruit – and to eat us too.”
They
went to live in a small Ayoreo community on the edge of the forest,
but soon after contact, Parojnai contracted flu and tuberculosis.
Survival campaigner Jonathan Mazower, who had visited him in 2003
and in 2007, this month said: ‘When I first met Parojnai, he was
already very sick. But I’ve seen pictures of him taken on the
day after first contact and he was incredibly fit and healthy
then.”
On
the first days of May, Parojnai died. His death acquired a significance
that Mazower expressed quite properly: “For me, Parojnai’s life
symbolises the fate of indigenous people in the Americas since
Columbus. Loss of his land to outsiders forced him to give up
his independence, and contact left him sick with a disease that
eventually killed him. The same tragedies faced by Indians 500
years ago are being played out today for the world’s last remaining
uncontacted tribes.”
Article
based on information from: “Paraguay: Ayoreo Indian Dies after
First Contact”, 7 May 2008, Survival International,
http://mcsv.net/cgi-bin/redir?MCid=ADomPAu9J28E4tnmA4RM
index
-
Zambia: Grabbed by the agrofuel stampede
In Africa,
agrofuel initiatives
are proliferating in many countries including Zambia, where jatropha
has been selected as the main crop to produce biodiesel while
sugar cane, sweet sorghum and cassava are chosen for bioethanol.
A research undertaken
by Matongo Mundia (1) in 2007 explains that “As on the rest of
the continent, much of the drive for biofuel developments in Zambia
comes from talk of achieving energy security and supporting social
and economic development. However, there seems to be a lack of
clarity over whether investment and targets are aimed at production
of biofuels for the Zambian market or for export.”
The Zambian government
has supported and endorsed the production of agrofuel
but the sector is fairly new in the
country. The report identifies D1 Oils -- a UK-based global
producer of biodiesel -- and Marli Investments as the main
drivers of agrofuel
production. Through the Biofuels Association of Zambia (BAZ),
the agrofuel industry has been trying to get incentives such as
minimum agrofuel
blends for all consumers, and the provision of incentives that
may fuel capital for the development of the sector.
“It seems that companies
such as D1 Oils may be promoting biofuels as a domestic
energy strategy, in order to open the door to amenable legislation,
while really intending to focus biofuel production on the export
market. The likelihood that biofuel production will ultimately
be targeted at export markets, and fail to benefit Zambians, is
supported by the fact that Zambia has no biofuel refining facilities
and D1 Oils are building a refinery in Durban, South Africa.
Once the product has left the country, the greater buying power
of the European consumer will undoubtedly prevail”, explains the
report.
A
shared fate in most places where large-scale agrofuel schemes
have been launched is that of deforestation and displacement:
“66% of Zambia’s landmass is comprised of woodlands and forests,
some of which are of special importance such as those in the river
headwaters (catchment areas), forest reserves and game parks.
Only about 26% of Zambian woodlands and forests could be
used for further agricultural productivity such as crops for agrofuels.
However, even without clearing more forests
for agriculture, Zambia is already experiencing very high levels
of deforestation. In a recent statement, Copperbelt Province Minister
Mr. Mwansa Mbulakulima intimated that a de-gazzeted forest reserve
will be given to investors (The Post, 4th May 2007). It is not
yet public knowledge whether this give-away will go towards biofuel
production, or to other industry developments. However, this indicates
that biofuel developments leading to deforestation will not find
many obstacles from local or national government.”
“There
are serious questions in Zambia about land availability for conversion
to agrofuel production, and the impact it will have on farmers,
food production, forested areas and indigenous peoples. The Lands
Act of 1995, provides for the conversion of customary tenure to
leasehold tenure, and many investors have already used this provision
to expropriate land for investment purposes. The government of
Zambia has intimated that they want to adopt a market oriented
land policy, and the new draft land policy also looks to be taking
these strategies forward.”
A strong opposition
to agrofuels has been rapidly mounting up challenging both the
alleged “carbon neutral” solution they claim to be and their environmental
and social impacts. In November 2007, several
African civil society organisations made “An African Call for
a Moratorium on Agrofuel Developments” (2) calling for a moratorium
on new agrofuel developments on their continent. “We need
to protect our food security, forests, water, land rights, farmers
and indigenous peoples from the aggressive march of agrofuel developments,
which are devouring our land and resources at an unbelievable
scale and speed,” reads the call.
They warn that “the
agrofuels ‘revolution’ is geared to replace millions of hectares
of local agricultural systems, and the rural communities working
in them, with large plantations. It is oriented to substitute
biodiversity-based indigenous cropping, grazing and pasture farming
systems with monocultures and genetically engineered agrofuel
crops. In addition, the millions of hectares of what the agrofuel-pushers
euphemistically call ‘wastelands’ or ‘marginal soils’ are to be
turned to ‘productive’ fuel production, conveniently forgetting
that millions of people in local communities make a living from
these fragile ecosystems. And where there are no indigenous farming
systems to replace, one just takes the forests. In the driver’s
seat are the multinational corporations that manage these kinds
of huge monocultures best and already control the international
market for agrofuels.”
And
they conclude: “We can ill afford to lose our food, forests, land
and water, if we are to meet the challenges of climate change
and food insecurity. We therefore ask our African governments
and those of the North to stop and think. We urgently call for
a moratorium that can protect Africa from the many threats of
the new and dangerous Agrofuels stampede.”
Article
based on information from: (1) “Agrofuels in Africa – The impacts
on land, food and forests”, African Biodiversity Network, July
2007, Biofuel case study: Zambia, Matongo Mundia, commissioned
by Clement Chipokolo,
http://www.gaiafoundation.org/documents/AgrofuelAfrica_Jul2007.pdf;
(2) November 2007, An African Call for a Moratorium on Agrofuel
Developments,
http://www.africanbiodiversity.org/media/1210585794.pdf?
PHPSESSID=0c91fabd2a80b164ffb52f594d4da9c5
index
-
Community forest management: A new and inspiring FoEI publication
Millions
of people throughout the world live in rural areas and to a greater
or lesser extent depend on forest ecosystems for their livelihoods.
However, forest degradation and deforestation are occurring at
alarming rates, thus endangering their lives.
Whether for forest-dependent
indigenous peoples and rural peasant communities or for urban
communities reliant on environmental services provided by forests,
these play a vital role in everyday life. Unfair distribution
processes, consumerism and the lack of good governance lie at
the centre of unsustainable resource management causing environmental
problems and the continual impoverishment of local populations.
This
new publication produced by the Forest and Biodiversity Programme
of Friends of the Earth International, provides renewed impetus
and documentation illustrating how innovative solutions based
on the knowledge of local communities are contributing to the
improvement of their life conditions while also protecting and
maintaining forest ecosystems.
“Community-based
forest governance refers to the regulations and practices used
by many communities for the conservation and sustainable use of
the forests with which they coexist. This type of governance is
collective-communal, and by tradition identifies with forest protection,
opposing the industrial and commercial use of forest resources”.
The
publication provides community experiences from a broad array
of countries, detailing successes and challenges in local peoples’
efforts to control, use and protect their forests. These experiences
include cases in India, Papua New Guinea, Malaysia, Indonesia,
France, Greece, Chile, Bolivia, Amazonia, Costa Rica, El Salvador
and Haiti. The cases offer a good basis for illustrating and motivating
reflection on community forest management with the aim of encouraging
the sustainable use of forests.
In
addition to local community experiences, the publication includes
analysis for critical reflection and discussion on a large number
of threats and opportunities, with issues ranging from the role
of governments and international financial institutions to food
sovereignty, consumerism, climate change, peoples health, markets
for local products and land tenure. The book shows how those issues
affect local peoples, linking them with the broader issue of social
and environmental justice.
Used
as a basis for collective reflection over local level resource
control, through processes of participatory decision making and
egalitarian benefit sharing, this inspiring publication is a valuable
tool to be used by communities wanting to exercise greater control
over their lives and resources, for communities struggling to
improve their lives, to restore degraded ecosystems, as well as
for political lobbying against socially and environmentally destructive
policies.
By:
Antonis Diamantidis, email:
antonis@wrm.org.uy
The
book is available in electronic format in Spanish at
http://www.coecoceiba.org/images/pub91.pdf, and will soon
be available in English and French. For further information please
contact Javier Baltodano, from Friends of the Earth at:
licania@racsa.co.cr
index
COMMUNITIES AND TREE MONOCULTURES
-
Women the most impacted by agrofuel production
The
expansion of large-scale plantations --either crops or trees--
for the production of liquid agrofuels such as bioethanol and
biodiesel is increasing in many Southern countries –with harmful
impacts on people and the environment.
Now,
even the FAO admits the risks. A recently published FAO report
looks into agrofuel production and their gendered impacts, explaining
that it may increase the marginalization of women in rural areas,
threatening their livelihoods.
The
large-scale pattern of agrofuel feedstocks conveys increased land
requirements that put pressure on so-called “marginal” lands,
which provide key subsistence functions to the rural poor and
are frequently farmed by women. The report acknowledges that replacement
of local crops with monoculture energy crop plantations could
threaten agro-biodiversity as well as the extensive knowledge
and the traditional skills of smallholder farmers in the management,
selection and storage of local crops, all activities performed
mainly by women.
In
addition, agrofuel production may negatively impact the livestock
sector, which is key to the food security of rural households,
through a reduction in the availability of land for grazing and
an increase in the price of fodder (due to the growing use of
agricultural commodities for agrofuel production).
The
potential depletion or degradation of natural resources associated
with large-scale plantations for agrofuel production
may place an additional burden on rural farmers’ work and health,
in particular on female farmers. If agrofuel production competes,
either directly or indirectly, for water and firewood supplies,
it could make such resources less readily available for household
use. This would force women, who are traditionally responsible,
in most developing countries, for collecting water and firewood,
to travel longer distances thus reducing the time available to
earn income from other sources.
The
potential loss of both biodiversity and agro-biodiversity presents
risks to food production as well, posing a serious threat to rural
livelihoods and long-term food security. In particular, the potential
deforestation associated with the establishment of large-scale
plantations for agrofuel production may
negatively impact the peoples who depend on such forests for their
livelihoods, increasing their food insecurity.
Agrofuel
production might also have gender-differentiated impacts on food
access, through both price and income effects. There is growing
evidence that the increasing demand for agricultural commodities
for the production of liquid agrofuels is
contributing to reverse the decrease in the price of both agricultural
commodities and food that has occurred in the last few decades.
This may have negative food security impacts, particularly for
households that are net purchasers as well as countries that are
net importers of agricultural commodities and food. The
rising demand for liquid agrofuels could
also make the prices of agricultural commodities and food more
unstable, exposing a significant number of households and individuals
to the risk of food insecurity. Sudden increases in food prices
would have negative repercussions in particular for poor households
and vulnerable groups, particularly women and female-headed households,
which tend to be particularly exposed to chronic and transitory
food insecurity, due also to their limited access to income-generating
activities.
Furthermore,
the alleged employment opportunities in rural areas of the establishment
of plantations for agrofuel production are targeted mainly to
low-skilled agricultural workers and these are rather seasonal
jobs or on a casual basis. FAO reports that a growing number
of these workers are women, who due to existing social inequalities
generally tend to be disadvantaged, compared to men, in terms
of employment benefits and exposure to occupational safety and
health risks.
In
general, the cultivation of sugarcane and oil palm has been linked,
in several Southern countries, to unfair conditions of employment,
health and safety risks, child labour and forced labour. In some
cases, working conditions on plantations (including those of agrofuel
feedstocks) tend to have a differentiated gender impact. Landowners
tend to prefer women workers, as they are able to pay them less
than their male counterparts and find them a docile and dependent
workforce, and are therefore more exploitable.
Reliable
data on the share of women waged agricultural workers are difficult
to obtain, given the prevalence of informal labour arrangements.
There is evidence, however, that this share has been rising worldwide
and women now account for 20-30 percent of total waged agricultural
workers. In Latin America and the Caribbean, the figure is 40
percent, while, in African countries, this percentage is likely
to be higher. There is evidence that women tend to receive on
average less training and instruction than men, they often do
repetitive work that can result in health problems, and face reproductive
hazards as a result of exposure to agrochemicals. In Malaysia,
for instance, women, who represent about half the workforce on
plantations, are often recruited as sprayers of chemical pesticides
and herbicides, without proper training and safety equipment.
This may have serious implications for the long-term health of
these women workers.
The
FAO report concludes that efforts to mitigate climate change through
the promotion of liquid agrofuels production
can reduce people’s socio-economic resilience (especially among
the most vulnerable groups, including women), weakening their
ability to cope with exogenous shocks such as climate change.
However,
FAO fails to take a committed stance against the agrofuels model
being promoted, which is unsustainable by its own nature, and
ends with the wishful thinking that “making sure that biofuels
production is beneficial to both men and women in developing countries
would therefore strengthen their ability to cope with the impacts
of climate change”.
We
welcome the information provided by the FAO report, though we
feel that its final conclusion doesn’t hold water. Agrofuels are
increasingly proving that they bring no environmental or social
benefits, and the FAO report depicts how they affect especially
poor and rural women. The conclusion should therefore be strong
and clear: if you want to benefit poor and rural women, do not
promote agrofuels!
Excerpted,
adapted and commented from: “Gender And Equity Issues In Liquid
Biofuels Production Minimizing The Risks To Maximize The Opportunities”,
Andrea Rossi and Yianna Lambrou, Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations, Rome, 2008, ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/ai503e/ai503e00.pdf
index
-
Australia/Tasmania: Deal favours Gunns’ pulp
mill project despite popular opposition
On
the first days of this month the Tasmanian people got to know
of a deal that had been struck four months before between their
government and the timber company Gunns. The deal, called the
Sovereign Risk Agreement, provides that taxpayers should fund
the company along 20 years with $15 million in case its wood supply
is compromised by any reason. (1)
Gunns’
projected pulp mill has faced strong opposition from social sectors
including students. In the blog Students Against the Pulp Mill
(http://stopthemill.blogspot.com/2008/04/alliance-forms-to-save-tasmania-from.html)
it can be read: “So if we vote this government out because we
don't approve of the pulp mill, the next government will be forced
to continue supplying timber to Gunns, even if most Tasmanians
don't agree to it. How undemocratic”.
The
government’s favouritism for Gunns is in stark contrast with its
attitude towards the concerns raised over the potential adverse
impacts of the unpopular pulp mill Gunns plans to build in the
Tamar Valley. The Gunns fast track approval did not even assess
the potential adverse impacts of the pulp mill industry on tourism,
fishing, niche clean agriculture and wine making. And in case
the proposed pulp mill causes damage to clean, green industries,
they won’t receive any compensation for that.
Local
businesses were told that it’s not the government’s business to
help them out if damage to their clean, green reputation ensues.
An
article from The Tasmanian Greens (2) denounces the following:
“A letter written by Premier Paul Lennon to the Tourism Industry
Council of Tasmania (TICT) specifically addressing industry concerns
over the pulp mill, dated 6 September 2007, states in relation
to the following concern expressed to him:
TICT:
‘There must be a method of assisting businesses that suffer loss
of trade or capital value as a proven result of the operation
of the pulp mill’.
Premier:
‘Individuals will need to seek independent legal advice about
remedies available to them should they suffer loss of trade or
capital value as a result of the operation of the pulp mill.’”
The
students’ blog reports that last April 16 “A diverse collection
of groups, individuals and businesses from around Tasmania and
Australia have come together in the Tamar Valley this weekend
and agreed to the formation of a cohesive working alliance to
stop the Gunns pulp mill.”
There
was a call to close personal bank accounts in ANZ Bank as a punishment
for its potential support to the Gunns’ pulp mill project, and
around 100 people –especially young people— rallied on the Parliament
House’s lawn to express the central message: DON'T PULP OUR FUTURE!
Article
based on information from: (1) Compo for Gunns if supply fails,
Matthew Denholm, The Australian,
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23652116-5013871,00.html;
(2) $15 Million Price Tag On Democracy Under Deal With Gunns,
http://tas.greens.org.au/News/view_MR.php?ActionID=2979
index
-
Burma: Generals go berserk on biofuels
Biofuels
– bio-diesel oil extracted from plants to replace high cost fossil
fuels – have become controversial as the biofuel plantations are
taking away lands mainly used, in particular for food production,
by local communities.
In
Burma, the ruling military junta has embarked on a massive expansion
of biofuel plantations through forced confiscation of lands as
well as arrests, fines, and beatings of farmers.
The
junta’s five-year plan targets 8 million acres with the Jatropha
curcas (physic nut, jetsuu in Burmese) tree for biofuel
production. Each state and division of the country has to plant
the crop across 500,000 acres. Now two years into the program,
information is seeping out about the brutalities the local populations
undergo being forced to plant jatropha.
“Biofuel
by Decree: Unmasking Burma's bio-energy fiasco,” a report produced
by the Ethnic Community Development Forum, an alliance of seven
community development organizations from Burma, details how the
Burmese junta is terrorizing the local populations to plant jatropha
for biofuels even as, according to the report, “evidence of crop
failure and mismanagement expose the program as a fiasco.”
The
report says that farmers, civil servants, teachers, schoolchildren,
nurses, and prisoners have been forced to purchase seeds and fulfill
outrageous planting quotas, consuming precious time, land and
resources essential for subsistence.
A
manual produced by the Ministry of Agriculture says that 1,200
trees should be grown per acre. If the targets are reached, this
would require every man, woman and child in Burma to each plant
177 trees within three years. The junta also plans to export biodiesel
in future and the jatropha project has attracted investors from
Thailand, Singapore and UK.
The
junta claims that biofuels are necessary as a fuel substitute
to make Burma decrease its dependence on the 200 million gallons
of oil it imports annually. The junta-owned Myanmar oil and Gas
Enterprise hopes that the country can replace all of its 40,000
barrels of conventional oil imports with domestic jatropha within
a few years. The junta’s claims for energy self-sufficiency, however,
seem dubious given that it has been selling off the country’s
numerous natural gas deposits to Thailand, India and China.
On
March 2006, the head of Burma’s military and the ruling State
Peace and Development Council (SPDC), Senior General Than Shwe,
urged the “extensive growing of physic nut across the nation,”
a speech that effectively made the biofuels project a “national
duty” and set off frenzied activities to plant jatropha in “all
empty spaces.”
Soon
high profile plantation ceremonies involving military top brass
and battalions of soldiers kicked off plantation projects across
villages and townships. The military told civil servants to plant
jatropha at state offices, schools, and hospitals; house gardens,
churchyards, monastery compounds, and even cemeteries were targeted.
The
military makes people buy seeds, branches or seedlings as well
as use their own labor, farm tools and land. Land confiscation
is the norm: for example, in northern Shan State, the military
took 1,000 acres of land belonging to farmers in Man Mao village
and gave the land to the local militia to grow jatropha.
The
majority of villagers are forced to buy seedlings, branches, or
seeds in packets and tin baskets (as well as an “instruction manual”)
often at exorbitant prices.
One
interviewee reports, “We bought the plants when the authorities
came to our village. Every house had to buy at 400 kyat per plant.
Some villagers had no money and had to borrow from others to pay
for the plants.” (The official exchange rate varies between 5.75
and 6.70 kyats per US dollar.)
In
one bizarre instance, villagers were forced to find wild seeds,
sow them in a nursery, and then buy back the seedlings they had
nurtured.
By
August 2006, jatropha cultivation reached the 1 million acre mark;
updated plans then called for 2.3 million acres in 2006-07, 2.68
million acres in 07-08, and 3.38 million acres in 08-09, making
a total of 8.36 million acres.
The
report explains the chilling situation in Burma where these quotas
are being enforced with beatings and death threats. Field research
in 32 townships in each of Burma’s states including 131 interviews
with farmers, civil servants and investors details how soldiers
are arresting and beating people and threatening death to those
not meeting quotas, damaging the plants, or criticizing the program.
At least eight hundred people have fled across the border to Thailand
from Southern Shan state to escape the cruelty of the biofuels
program.
Despite
all these measures, massive crop failures – as high as 72% – plague
the project after two years of implementation due to haphazard
growing techniques and bad seed stock.
Even
when the trees themselves grow, often they bear few seeds because
climate and soil conditions are not adequately taken into consideration.
Moreover, Burma has little capacity to extract oil from seed,
and much of the biodiesel produced has been of such poor quality
that engines won't run on them.
The
jatropha trees take 4 to 5 years to mature fully. During this
period, farmers get no income from it; families also have little
to eat since the arable lands are taken over by the biofuel plantations.
One farmer asks, “They said it would be a three-year project;
but what are we going to eat in the meantime?”
Food
scarcity is a serious problem in many parts of Burma. According
to the United Nations World Food Program, in 2007, some 5 million
people or almost 10 percent of Burma’s population were chronically
short of food.
One
farmer said, “We suffer from lack of farmlands for cultivation.
We cannot work for ourselves properly. We have to grow jet
suu. If we don’t want to grow they collect 2,500 kyat per
acre from each of us. Our time is limited and now we have to go
far away to work and have no time to weed our paddy.”
Concerns
also persist about the poisonous properties of the jatropha plant
due to presence of toxalbumin called curcin, ricin and cyanic
acid, related to ricinoleic acid. Though all parts of the plant
are poisonous, seeds have the highest concentration of ricin and
thus highly poisonous. Ricin has been shown to exhibit many cardiotoxic
(heart muscle damage) and hemolytic (breaking open of red blood
cells and the release of hemoglobin into the surrounding fluid)
effects. Adverse effects following consumption of seeds include
vomiting, diarrhoea, abdominal pain, and burning sensation in
the throat.
Local
people have found ways to show defiance. Faced with loss of lands
and livelihoods, many villagers see no choice but to find ways
to avoid or refuse to plant. Some buy seedlings but don’t plant
them; others plant less than ordered; signboards promoting biofuels
have also been defaced.
By
Amraapali N., a writer in the Mekong region, e-mail: amraapali@gmail.com
The
report “Biofuel by Decree” published by the ethnic Community Development
Forum (ECDF) is available for download at:
http://cban.ca/Resources/Topics/Agrofuels.
index
-
South Africa: A visit to Komatiland Forests
industrial tree monocultures
In
November 2007, several representatives from World Rainforest Movement
visited Komatiland Forests' operations at Brooklands in Mpumalanga
province in South Africa.
Under
a photograph of J. Brooke Shires, who planted the first eucalyptus
and acacia trees at Brooklands in 1876, we listened to a company
presentation. Komatiland is a parastatal company managing a total
of about 128,000 hectares of mainly pine plantations. The trees
are grown on a 28 to 30 year rotation for saw logs. Komatiland
employs 2,400 people with a further 1,200 people employed on a
contract basis, we were told. The Komatiland plantations at Brooklands
cover an area of just over 12,000 hectares. The company uses a
horse harvesting system on about one-third of its land at Brooklands.
The
company has been certified by SGS Qualifor under the Forest Stewardship
Council certification system since 1997. A Komatiland official
told us that there are four stages of certification: unknowingly
non-compliant; knowingly non-compliant; knowingly compliant; and
unknowingly compliant. In these days of corporate greenwash, this
part of the presentation was refreshingly honest. "I'm buggered
if I know where we are," he said, laughing. "Somewhere
between two and three." This was a staff member of an FSC-certified
company admitting publicly that Komatiland was not fully compliant
with FSC standards. "There are problems with all operations.
We are not perfect. You will be able to find problems in every
one of our plantation units." He said this to an audience
that he knew was critical of both industrial tree plantations
and FSC certification.
Winnie
Overbeek asked about land rights and conflicts over land. "That
sounds like a very European question," came the reply. Overbeek
explained that he has worked for more than a decade in Brazil
supporting the Tupinikim and Guarani Indigenous Peoples in their
struggle for land in the area occupied by Aracruz Cellulose's
plantations and that his question was based on this experience.
Undaunted, the company representative continued. "South Africa
is a very unique country", he explained. "There are
no indigenous people in South Africa according to FSC standards.
Apartheid happened and there are lots of land claims. All plantations
and farms have land claims. That doesn't mean that they are valid
land claims." All of which sounds remarkably similar to the
arguments that Aracruz used, before the Brazilian Ministry of
Justice ruled in favour of the Tupinikim and Guarani (see WRM
Bulletin 122, September 2007).
In
2007, Komatiland lost about 17,000 hectares of plantations to
fire. "Global warming is making things worse," said
the Komatiland official. "For example, pine beetles are attacking
native forest trees. No one knows what will happen next. We're
in for some changes and we're scared of it."
Wally
Menne of the TimberWatch coalition pushed home the point that
although the company is called Komatiland Forests, this is a misnomer,
because Komatiland's forestry operations consist of large scale
industrial tree plantations.
After
the presentation, the company took us to look at some of its plantations.
We drove through Komatiland's pine and eucalyptus monocultures.
We saw huge areas of clearcuts and burnt areas of plantation.
We drove past the company-built accommodation for workers - rows
of small, crudely built terraced bungalows with tin roofs and
large numbers painted on the doors. In its assessment of Komatiland,
SGS states that the company directly employs only 1,729 people.
Driving through the plantations and clearcuts we saw very few
workers.
We
stopped on a ridge, with lush green grassland on one side of the
track and a scene of complete destruction on the other. Every
living thing had been cut and scraped away, leaving what looked
like a brown moonscape. We got out and walked past piles of logs,
some of which were marked with SGS's forest management and chain
of custody number (SGS-FM-COC-0068). In the distance a machine
was picking up logs and leaving them in neat piles.
In
the company's presentation we'd been told that 30 per cent of
Komatiland's land is open, and that since 1994, the area of plantations
at Brooklands had been reduced from 10,000 hectares to 9,000 hectares.
We were told that there was no planting within 20 metres of streams.
There was a stream flowing just next to the clearcut. Eucalyptus
and pine trees were growing right up to the stream bank.
We
saw a log extraction operation using horses. Komatiland told us
that using horses damages the soil less and employs more people
than mechanised log extraction. The operation that we saw was
on a slope that was in any case far too steep to use machines.
It looked like brutally hard work. Four men were working with
three horses. The horses pulled the logs one at a time down the
slope. The men then had to unfasten the chains from the log and
pull the horses back up the slope. Meanwhile the managers watched
them from the bottom of the slope. One of them had brought his
dog with him to work.
During the company's presentation, we
had been told that "Apartheid happened" in South Africa.
Yet every worker we saw was black. And every manager we saw was
white. In Komatiland's plantations, it seems, apartheid still exists.
By
Chris Lang, http://chrislang.org
index
DIRECT
FROM THE CBD
- Bursts of true life into the Convention
on Biological Diversity
The Convention
on Biological Diversity (CBD) is an international governmental
process which looked pretty nice when it was born in 1992,
under the UN Earth Summit that took place in Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil.
By then
it seemed that the world’s governments had become
aware of the Earth’s looming future in case biodiversity
loss under deforestation, biopiracy, agribusiness expansion,
and so on, remained unchanged. So a mechanism –the
CBD-- was put in motion, gathering every two years in
high-level summits paralleled by civil society organization’s
events.
The
CBD managed to resist corporate contamination a bit more
than other fora (e.g. the Convention on Climate Change).
However, little by little it has been increasingly hijacked
by the industry’s agenda until it has become a string
of protracted sessions where documents full of brackets
are delayed waiting for lobbies clinching their deals
on issues that have direct impacts on peoples’ present
and future lives.
Over and over again social organizations
have tried to make a breach in the wall participating
in the spaces granted to them within the process. However,
real effects at policy and implementation level have been
few.
As
a result, they have tried to make their way and insufflate
true people’s problems, worries, dreams --true people’s
lives-- into the CBD. And they have done so through imagination,
participation, humour and
–why not?,- even anger.
Here
follows a brief overview of some of the actions carried
out at the current 9th Conference of the Parties (COP9)
to the CBD, taking place in Bonn.
Sunday
May 18
“Agrofuels create poverty and hunger"
Around
60 people protested against the large scale cultivation
of crops for energy --which is disastrous for food supply
and causes deforestation— as a way of dealing with
global warming. So far, the honest conclusion that a radical
reduction of energy use is needed mainly in ‘the
West’ is ignored by the mainstream media and policy
makers.
At two
petrol stations car drivers had to make a choice: 'petrol'
to the right, 'food' to the left. Banners were stating
"agrofuels, no solution for oil addiction."
Most
drivers had some sympathy for the action but wanted to
fill up petrol anyway this time.
The worker
in the Shell station was furious about the counter information
in front of her petrol station and called the police.
After some discussions the action was allowed, although
drivers had to be given more possibilities to go around
the 'gate of choice'.
After
two hours the group started to move again for a short
demonstration ending on a field with a picnic with healthy
and local food, as it is still possible. |
Amongst the activists
were many people from Via Campesina, the international
network of small farmers. For them and the millions
they represent, the large scale introduction of agrofuels
is a direct danger for their livelihoods and life.
|
|
Thursday
May 22
UN Biodiversity Day … or let’s say the International
Profitdiversity Day
A lunch-meeting
was organised by the International Chamber of Commerce,
the lobby organisation of the world’s largest
corporations. Their meeting was interrupted by the visit
of a peculiar group of “happy shareholders”
who celebrated agribusiness monopolies and congratulated
industry for destroying agricultural biodiversity, all
of which made possible their high profits. They ended
making a toast to the Purveyors of the (Gan)Green Revolution!
Part of their speech: "We, 'The Small Shareholders
Initiative', TSSI are very glad about the important
issues we have to report on behalf of the International
Profitdiversity Day today:
- Business gets
220.000 US $ to support companies in their work at the
CBD. This means that we can give our profits to the
shareholders and still make people believe that we work
for biodiversity.
|
- During the high
level meeting Thursday May 29, business rightly gets
a full hour to present its ideas. All other stakeholders
together have to share the other hour. Afterwards
all delegates are invited, as part of the official
programme, by business for a lunch. Another possibility
is to make the delegations do what we want.
Hear
hear!"
|
 |
|
Thursday
May 22
Nature for People, Not for Business!
Activists from all
over the world hang a banner, banged on teacups and
handed out Via Campesina messages during the official
celebrations of Biodiversity Day, at the end of a message
by UN secretary general Ban Ki Moon to the delegates
of the Convention.
Given that agrobusiness
dominates the present global food trade with a Green
Revolution package that destroys bio and agrodiversity,
the banners read "No Agrodiversity Without Farmers"
and "Nature for People Not for Business".
After a few minutes
the banners were taken away by UN police officers and
officials and the people holding them were escorted
out of the Maritim Hotel, and lost their accreditation
badges, which are required to participate in the meetings.
However, members
of Via Campesina were given a round of applause from
many government delegates when they chanted "nature
for people, not for business".
The message was
that no solution can come from such production model.
Instead, it is rural communities who are the key to
both the solution to world hunger and the safeguarding
of the world's biodiversity.
|
They have the ability
to feed the world promoting food diversity, sustaining
traditional cultures and not burdening the environment.
Moreover, small-scale, local and ecological production
is an effective and immediate way of reducing carbon
emissions and cooling down the planet.
|
 |
Friday May
24
Plantations are not Forests!
The German Forestry
Council organized an event for forest and timber industry
representatives.
The usual pro-market,
utilitarian approach to forests speech made no distinction
between forests and plantations, and in fact was illustrated
with pictures of monoculture tree plantations, described
as forests.
The use and marketing
of forests was presented as a climate friendly strategy,
with much attention on the carbon sequestering capacity
of forests. The presentation ended with an emotional
“plea” to utilize wood resources, illustrated
by an image of a sculpture, the “wooden man”
and followed by a violin concert, and the point was
then made that “even violins” are made out
of wood.
After the presentation
there was a reception. On the spur of the moment, a
group of five women quickly put together a strategy
for presenting their views: as guests were enjoying
drinks and appetizers, they captured their attention,
then took turns, each for a very brief statement, to
speak on the dangers of GE trees, on the failure of
plantations to support goals of mitigating climate change
and protecting biodiversity and on the impact of monoculture
tree plantations on soils, waterways and people in Brazil
and Uruguay, as well as the situation of European forests,
pointing out their long history of exploitation and
the concomitant loss of biodiversity.
|
|
A small
group of people stomped out of the room apparently angry
at their interruption, but overall their small action
was well received by the guests who clapped and mostly
nodded in apparent agreement. One more opportunity taken
to speak out against the monoculture mentality.
|
 |
|
Tuesday
May 27
A Call for a Ban on GE Trees
A tree planting
ceremony was being held outside the meeting of the CBD.
A large number of activists participated, some mimicking
Genetically Engineered frankentrees that attempted to
invade the CBD while others stopping and chopping them
down before they could succeed.
The tree planting
ceremony was symbolic of what industry is pushing--non-native,
often invasive trees for monoculture timber plantations.
GE trees will mean more plantations and an even greater
threat.
|
| A
ban on the release of genetically engineered trees into
the environment is supported by African delegates plus
numerous Parties from Asia and Latin America. It was discussed
at length during the first week of the Biodiversity Convention
and will now move into the High Level Session where Ministers
from around the world will decide what will happen with
this issue. |
 |
Wednesday
May 28
FSC: Stop Certifying Monoculture Tree Plantations
Activists
from social movements attended a side event organized
by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). Holding a banner,
they stated their concern about FSC's approach, that
has ignored the dramatic evidence provided by social
and environmental movements from around the world regarding
the harmful impacts of tree plantations, which has allowed
millions of hectares of monoculture tree plantations
to be falsely certified as "forests".
During
the side event a statement was read in which they expressed
that apart from having to confront governments and corporations,
local communities struggling against large-scale monoculture
tree plantations must face the additional problem posed
by the fact that these same plantations are being given
credibility through certification by the FSC. Yet, the
credibility of FSC is increasingly undermined by certification
of these and other destructive projects.
After a
couple of questions and a short discussion, FSC closed
the meeting, although several more people wanted to
ask questions and some pointed out that this should
be a democratic space for discussing the problems with
FSC.
The activists
concluded that FSC's decision-making is controlled by
corporate interests which try to convince consumers
that buying more timber products is good for biodiversity.
This is undermining the efforts of environmental organizations,
which are working on educating consumers on the need
to reduce consumption.
Their claim was: Plantations are not forests and FSC
should not certify them! FSC should STOP being a tool
for corporate interests!
|
|
Reports based
on information from:
La Vía Campesina,
http://viacampesina.org/main_en/index.php</ |
