OUR
VIEWPOINT
-
The many invisible “Gaza Strips” in the forests
During
the last weeks, the world became an impotent witness to the horror
of the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip. Although the images
transmitted by TV barely reflected a small part of the suffering
of the Palestinian people, they were more than enough to understand
the dramatic situation they were going through. Entire families
being wiped out by bombs; homes, schools, shops, hospitals and
temples reduced to rubble in a matter of seconds; water, sewage
and energy systems destroyed; fear, wrath, pain, weariness, hunger
and thirst.
What
much of the world doesn’t know – because they are never included
in the mass media’s news – is that there are other very similar
situations to that of the Gaza Strip taking place almost daily
in different parts of the planet. The weapons employed may be
different and the number of people affected fewer, but the results
are the same: violation of people’s human rights and destruction
of their means of livelihood.
For
example, on 18th December 2008 hundreds of police and paramilitaries
stormed a village in the Sumatran province of Riau, Indonesia,
with teargas and guns. A helicopter dropped an incendiary bomb
on the village burning hundreds of houses allegedly with napalm.
Teargas and fire arms were used. Two toddlers were killed and
many people were injured while others were arrested. Some 400
villagers fled into the forest in the mountains and just 58 people
remained in the village. Two days later, a helicopter flew at
low height over the tents of homeless villagers and bombarded
them with stones.
The
reason for so much violence may seem absurd: the manufacture of
paper. However, as in the case of the Palestinian conflict,
the key issue is territorial control. The Indonesian Government
ignores the traditional rights of the local people and allocates
itself land ownership which it then transfers to a company to
plant trees to produce paper. The local communities resist eviction
and the government’s response is violence.
Similar
situations are taking place all the time and the issue of territorial
control is always present as one of the central causes. For example,
each time a government decides to build a large hydroelectric
dam it is violating the rights of thousands or hundreds of thousands
of people who live in the area and whose homes, forests and fields
are going to be flooded or whose means of survival are going to
be seriously affected by the dam. What generally happens
is that people do not accept this situation passively and then
the State intervenes using repression and criminalizing the protest.
The
same happens when a State grants logging, oil or mining concessions
to a company. The affected territory is not empty, but inhabited
by indigenous, traditional or peasant communities, that in many
cases have been living there long before the existence of the
national State. However, the latter ignores the ancestral rights
of these communities and allocates itself the right of ownership
over those lands.
It
is important to point out that for these peoples the destruction
of the forest is similar to what took place in the Gaza Strip:
the destruction of homes, temples, schools, shops, hospitals,
drinking water systems. For these peoples, the forest is
their home and their temple and from it they obtain their food,
medicines, fertilizers, fibres, wood, water and everything they
require for their livelihood. The disappearance of the forest
and the environmental degradation resulting from the industrial
activities that take over – logging, monoculture plantations,
mining or oil exploitation, hydro-energy, etc. – are like “bombs”
that are thrown on their territories, destroying all that is of
value to them.
"We
are all Palestinians”. Under this slogan, thousands of people
all around the world demonstrated their support to the Palestinian
people and their rejection of the attack by the State of Israel
on the Gaza Strip. Many other “Palestinians” – such as the Ayoreo
in Paraguay, Adivasi in India, Bagyeli in Central Africa, Tagaeri
and Taromenane in Ecuador/Peru and many others – are today being
“bombed” and need support in their unequal struggle against an
enemy that is much more powerful than they are.
index
COMMUNITIES
AND FORESTS
- Cameroon: A “communal forest” opposed by local communities
To
establish a communal forest may look like a good proposal. However,
it may be not, according to many local villagers from the district
of Dzeng (Center Province, Department of Nyong and So'o), who
have denounced the attempt of the current Dzeng’s mayor to make
use of their forest lands for commercial exploitation. Some 25.182
hectares of forest lands would be classified as a "communal
forest", an intermediate category between logging concessions
and community forests.
Law
No. 94/01 provides that classification should take into account
the social environment of the local populations so they keep their
traditional rights of use. Under the category of a “communal forest”
a management plan is prepared by the local authority, and must
also involve the participation and agreement of the local population.
In this case the local communities were never consulted and mistrust
arises from the fact that they were never told about the mayor’s
plan to classify their lands as "communal forest" thus
breaking the spirit of the Law –they only got to know about it
through an inconspicuous written communiqué hang on one of the
walls of the municipality of Dzeng.
The
local mayor has said that he plans to build a saw-mill in the
area. "We firmly express our opposition to this project of
forced classification of all our forests crossed by the Tofini
stream as communal forest with the purpose of filling the pockets
of a group of individuals that have never been preoccupied about
the public interest", the heads of the Assok and Nkonmedzap
villages wrote to the mayor. (1)
The
mayor argues that the extreme impoverishment of his municipality
is what urges him to establish a communal forest and count on
resources for the accomplishment of projects. However, those forest
lands have already been highly exploited by logging companies,
which only brought forest destruction for the communities. The
forest was left without its most valuable species and now is just
regenerating from the action of corporations such as SAB and SEBC
- subsidiaries of the French-owned Thanry Group, one of the largest
logging conglomerates in Africa. Thanry is now controlled
by the Hong Kong company Vicwood Pacific.
An open letter sent
to the President of the Republic of Cameroon, Paul Biya, by Alain
G. Njimoluh Anyouzoa
conveys his
fear “that is also shared by all the families of the aforementioned
district when we are told that as a consolation prize
for loosing our lands to commercial exploitation, we would get
in its place a sawmill!” The letter asks for the President’s arbitration
to prevent “the attempted plundering of our district, as it has
already been the case in other regions of our beloved country”.
An
open letter was also addressed to the mayor Emmanuel Nnemde contending
that it would be a manipulated classification of forest lands
as a “communal forest” that would bring no benefits to the local
communities. “You state that your decision for the emergency acquisition
of a communal forest was motivated by the extreme poverty of your
district and a great need for resources to implement projects.
Your constituents whose forests had been harvested ruthlessly
by the logging companies Sab and Coron in the eighties without
a single local investment in return have disproved the arguments
you pushed forward”, said the letter.
In
his letter, Njimoluh Anyouzoa referred to the disastrous consequences
resulting from the haphazard management of the existing communal
forests –social problems like unemployment, poverty, famine, prostitution,
serious illnesses (HIV/ AIDS), unwanted pregnancies. Those
social problems that, he said, “the people of Assok, Nkomedzap
and other populations have tried to tell you in their petition
submitted to the relevant Cameroonian officials, as it specifically
relate to law No. 94/01 of January 20 1994 pertaining to the regulations
on forests, wildlife and fishery, which grants you an almost discretionary
power on harvesting these forests once they become ‘communal forests’”.
He
announced that he had sent a copy of his letter “to the office
of the European Environment Agency (EEA) in Copenhagen (Denmark)
this week intending to find out if the European Union (EU) was
in any way involved in this scheme, and to vigorously denounce
the policy of ‘eliminating our forests’ in which the EU has sometimes
participated with the help of a few local officials.”
Sources:
(1) « Dzeng : Une forêt déchire les populations et le maire »,
Mutations, November 27, 2008,
http://www.quotidienmutations.info/mutations/nov08/1227799736.php
. (2) Njimoluh
Anyouzoa, December 30, 2008, sent by the author.
index
- Congo, D.R: Inga dams mean big business for corporations and
no benefit for local communities
The Inga hydroelectric scheme (Inga 1, Inga 2, Inga 3 and Grand
Inga) is located 140 miles southwest of capital city Kinshasa.
It lies on the largest waterfall by volume in the world, the Inga
falls, where the Congo River drops 96 m (315 ft) over the course
of nine miles with an average flow of 42,476 m³/s.
The project started in 1920 during Belgian colonial rule. Colonial
authorities forced the site’s first inhabitants to leave without
any compensation. Inga’s displaced communities haven’t received
any compensation till today.
The hydroelectric plants Inga 1and Inga 2 were commissioned in
1972 and 1982. Both dams contributed heavily to the country's
spiraling debt crisis and currently operate at only 40% capacity
because they never received maintenance: about half of the 14
turbines don’t work at all. (1)
Inga 3 would be a tunnel diversion hydropower scheme for electricity
export to South Africa and other neighboring countries, and to
attract energy-intensive industries to DRC, with a total cost
up to $8 billion. (2)
Grand Inga (see WRM Bulletin no. 77) was
proposed in the 1980s and was delayed by political conflict in
central Africa. It started moving again in April last year when
seven African governments and the world's largest banks and construction
firms met to plan the massive hydropower project with an estimated
cost of US$80 billion. Designed as a series of 52 750MW turbine
installations, the Grand Inga mega–project (which includes the
related Inga 3), could produce over twice the power generation
of the world’s largest and most notorious Three Gorges Dam in
China.
Grand Inga will allegedly "light up Africa" thus allowing
industrialization as a way of alleviating the continent’s poverty.
Quoting International Rivers’ report: “Inga’s centralized grid
system is likely to do little to "light up" Africa for
the 90% of people now living without electricity, most of whom
live in rural areas outside the reach of power grids. Grid expansion
is quite costly, and trying to reach scattered rural communities
would significantly increase project costs as well as the cost
of electricity. … Based on historical trends, the trickle–down
effects in the form of jobs and taxes will likely be minimal for
Africa’s poorest, while also increasing unsustainable national
debt loads.” (3)
Indeed, the mega-project will provide industrial economic growth
for foreign businesses seeking cheap electricity and financial
opportunities for Africa’s elite business and government leaders.
They have the financial support of the World Bank Group, the European
Investment Bank and the African Development Bank as well as the
political leverage of the G8 countries.
Also, according to a The Guardian’s article, “Grand Inga's prospects
of being completed by 2022 are said to have risen significantly
in the last year as countries, banks and private companies have
found they can earn high returns from the emerging global carbon
offset market and UN climate change credits.” (4)
In a time of credit crunch, the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM),
a market-based program to subsidize alleged low-carbon projects
in developing countries allowing industrial polluters to continue
“business as usual”, represents another highly needed source of
money for such a millionaire scheme. Grand Inga project is being
sold as “clean and environmentally friendly” energy that can offset
carbon emissions elsewhere “by harnessing run–of–river hydroelectricity
as opposed to damming up a river".
But as International Rivers warns: “While run–of–river projects
can have less damaging consequences than storage dams, they are
often far from environmentally benign. The term ‘run–of–river’
is undefined, and is often therefore used to ‘greenwash’ projects.
In fact, many run–of–river dams have large dam walls, major social
and environmental impacts, and even reservoirs. The extent of
barriers and diversion canals involved in this colossal project
is still unclear, but the cumulative impacts of Grand Inga’s 52
turbine installations, as well as Inga 3, on the river’s flow
could be considerable. Impacts to fisheries, riverine forests
and river ecology will need careful study. As more studies of
GHG emissions from hydropower are conducted, scientists are finding
increasing evidence that emissions from dams, especially methane,
are a legitimate concern”.
(1) Inga 1 and Inga 2 dams, International Rivers,
http://www.internationalrivers.org/en/node/2877
(2) Inga 3, International Rivers,
http://www.internationalrivers.org/en/africa/grand-inga-dam-dr-congo/inga-3;
(3) Grand Inga, International Rivers,
http://www.internationalrivers.org/en/africa/grand-inga-grand-illusions
(4) “Banks Meet Over £40bn Plan to Harness Power of Congo River
and Double Africa's Electricity”, John Vidal, The Guardian,
http://www.internationalrivers.org/en/node/2744
index
- Ecuador: New oil exploration activities in Yasuní National Park
Yasuní National Park stretches along the basins of the Yasuní,
Cononaco, Nashiño and Tiputini Rivers. Aside from the fact that
these are major rivers in their own right, they are also surrounded
by floodplains, wetlands, lagoons and lake systems like the Jatuncocha,
Garzacocha and Lagartococha. This area is also the ancestral territory
of the Waorani indigenous people and two indigenous tribes living
in voluntary isolation, the Tagaeri and Taromenane.
Cononaco and Tiputini, like hundreds of other indigenous names,
are also the names of oilfields. The oil industry’s practice of
using indigenous names for projects that entail the devastation
of indigenous territories are just one more means of humiliation
of the local communities.
In December 2008, the Waorani denounced new oil exploration activities
in the Cononaco oilfield. In order to appease the community, the
Ecuadorian state-owned oil company, Petroecuador, paid them 35,000
dollars. But these new activities affect the Yasuní National Park,
a protected area.
Previous oil operations in Cononaco have been inspected as part
of the trial underway against Texaco, since the activities in
the field were undertaken by this multinational oil giant. Of
the 35 samples taken, 30 showed readings higher than those permitted
by law.
The area in question forms part of both the Yasuní Biosphere Reserve
and the Waorani people’s ancestral territory, and the contamination
caused by oil activities there directly affects Yasuní National
Park.
When the pipeline between the Auca and Cononaco oilfields burst
in 2006, the resulting oil spill contaminated the Tiputini River
which runs through the National Park. But the new exploration
activity is even more menacing, because it is taking place in
areas vital to the survival of indigenous peoples living in voluntary
isolation.
Moreover, the denunciation of new exploration activity in protected
areas implicitly exposes the continuation of the extraction-based
economic model, which views nature as merely an adversary, and
the continued use of typical oil industry practices. Essentially,
the first hole drilled will imply the violation of all of the
rights recognized in the country’s new constitution:
* The prohibition of oil operations in protected areas, Art. 407.
* The right of nature to exist and maintain its life cycles and
structure, Art. 72.
* The precautionary principle, established through the stipulation
that the State will apply precaution and restriction measures
to all activities that can lead to the extinction of species,
the destruction of ecosystems or the permanent alteration of natural
cycles, Art. 73.
* The protection of the territory of peoples living in voluntary
isolation, a right whose violation would entail the crimes of
genocide and ethnocide, Art. 57.
The Waorani, who have demonstrated their opposition to oil operations
through different forms of protest, have been treated as criminals,
divided and ignored. Today, however, protected by the right to
resistance recognized in the new constitution (Art. 98), they
are armed with a new tool to move from denunciation to action.
By Esperanza Martínez, Oilwatch: tegantai@oilwatch.org
index
- Paraguay: Action to protect Indigenous Peoples in voluntary
isolation cannot be delayed
The Ayoreo Indigenous People are one of an estimated 100 uncontacted
tribes around the world and the only uncontacted people in South
America outside the Amazon basin. The Totobiegosode (‘people from
the place of the wild pigs’) are the most isolated sub-group of
the Ayoreo and live in the Chaco, a vast expanse of dense, scrubby
forest stretching from Paraguay to Bolivia and Argentina. They
are extremely vulnerable to any form of contact with outsiders
because of their lack of immunity to diseases, warns an emergency
submission sent in November 2008 by Survival International to
the United Nations. (1)
Though
some have still managed to avoid all contact with outsiders, since
1969 many of them have been forced out of the forest harassed
by deforestation carried out by land speculators and ranchers.
Two Brazilian companies -Yaguarete Pora SA and River Plate SA-
are currently devastating the Totobiegosode’s ancestral territory
and livelihood to make way mainly for grazing cattle for beef.
Widespread
condemnation and pressure from the public in Paraguay has come
as a result of satellite photos that revealed the destruction
of the Indigenous Peoples’ land, as well as increasing media coverage
of the issue around the world and a letter campaign from Survival
International. (2) Paraguay’s National Environment Council (CONAM)
announced the decision to withdraw Yaguarete’s licence to work
in the area. Still, when a government team went to investigate
the activities of the Brazilian Yaguarete Pora SA in the area,
it was barred from doing so by the company’s employees.
The Global Forest Coalition (3) reports that “This tragedy is
occurring in Paraguay's largest reservoir of carbon and is happening
in a department where deforestation is banned by the Department's
Law.”
The
amount of Totobiegosode’s land bulldozed in the northern Chaco
has almost tripled since May last year. The push for agrofuels
has added to the traditional land grab to graze cattle for beef.
The Minister of Agriculture of Paraguay was in the Chaco Region
promoting crops for agrofuels as a profitable scheme. The Argentinean
firms Carlos Casado
and Patagonia Bioenergía joined to create a company to produce
in Paraguay Jatropha curcas for agrofuel. (http://www.biodiesel.com.ar/?p=1001#more-1001).
According
to GFC, “The Ayoreo’s land is being deforested at a tremendous
rate. More than 200 hectares have been clear-cut and another 1,000
hectares are slated to be cut by the end of the year. The deforesters
vow that they will meet this deadline ‘come what may.’ The lands
will be designated for growing 5 species of oleaginous plants
for ‘bio-diesel’ production including Jatropha curcas.” The GFC
informs that “The company Carlos Casado already has a ‘field trial’
of 15,000 hectares in the western part of the Chaco”.
Projects
and policies that devastate the cultural diversity of the society,
the environment and the climate run counter to the discourse of
President Fernando Lugo, who has promised to protect Indigenous
Peoples’ rights and the environment. As Survival International
warns: “Lugo must take action to protect the Ayoreo-Totobiegosode
now. Wait any longer and it may be too late.”
(1)
“Emergency report to UN about uncontacted tribe”, Survival International,
http://www.survival-international.org/news/3938
(2)
“Glimmer of hope for uncontacted tribe”, Survival International,
http://www.survival-international.org/news/3929
(3)
“Agrofuel Production Threatens the Life of last remaining
Indigenous Peoples Living in Voluntary
Isolation South from the Amazonian Basin,”
11 December 2008, Global Forest Coalition, sent by Rachel Smolker,
Global Justice Ecology Project/Global Forest Coalition, e-mail:
index
- Philippines: Oil and gas bringing misery and destruction in
mangrove region
More than three years ago, a large vessel arrived without warning
at Tañon Strait, one of the richest fishing grounds in Central
Philippines and a global center for marine biodiversity. For two
months, the M/S Veritas Searcher owned by the Japan Petroleum
Exploration Co. Ltd. (Japex) roamed the strait to determine the
existence of oil and natural gas deposits using highly sophisticated
technology to detect and determine the extent of these deposits.
Unknown to the people, Japex was already undertaking an extensive
geophysical survey, using a vessel with an airgun and hydrophones
connected to a cable that it drags underwater to produce seismic
reflection surveys to detect large scale features of the sub-surface
geology. The sonic boom from an airgun array is 255 decibels (dB),
way over the human threshold of 80 dB and that of animals which
is ever lower. Seismic blasting can damage reproductive organs,
burst air bladders, and cause physiological stress in marine organisms.
It can also cause behavioral modifications and reduce or eliminate
available habitat, alter fish distribution by tens of kilometers,
and damage planktonic eggs and larvae. Since then, the lives of
thousands of subsistence fisherfolk have never been the same.
Mangroves that line the Tañon Strait are indicative of the rich
food provider ecosystem now endangered by oil and gas exploration
activities. Fish is a major diet component, accounting for over
50 percent of the total animal protein consumed in the country.
The oil and gas exploration activities of Japex at the Tañon Strait
and NorAsia Energy Ltd. at the Cebu-Bohol Strait are adversely
affecting an estimated 200,000 fisherfolk in the provinces of
Cebu, Bohol, Negros Oriental, and Negros Occidental in the Central
Visayas region. Various Fact Finding Missions conducted by different
groups since 2005 documented destruction of fisherfolk devices
for fishing, disappearance of local types of fish as well as fish
catch reductions brought about by Japex and NorAsia’s operations:
3 – 5 kilos from 15 – 20 kilos reported by fisherfolk using motorizad
boats; 0 – 2 kilos from 4 – 6 kilos by fisherfolk using non-motorized
boats.
The fisherfolk organization Pamalakaya fears that oil and gas
exploration activities have long-term impacts not only on the
livelihood of subsistence fisherfolk in the region, but on the
food security of the whole country as well. They may result in
a “fish crisis” that would cut domestic production by an average
of 600,000 metric tons of fish and other marine products annually
for the next seven to 10 years, the group said. Even per capita
fish consumption of every Filipino may be reduced by not less
than 20 percent.
Meanwhile, Australian company NorAsia, is preparing to conduct
off-shore drilling in the Cebu-Bohol Strait early next year. If
oil and gas exploration has had such devastating impacts, imagine
exploitation. “We’re scared that when the drilling starts, we
would totally have nothing left to eat. Even now all we can afford
most of the time is just rice. Some of my fellow fish vendors
have migrated to the cities to work as domestic helpers because
there is no livelihood left here,” said Lucena Sarahena, 41, a
resident of Brgy. Langtad, Argao. “Our income used to be just
enough for transportation, food, and electricity. Now it is barely
enough even to put food on the table,” said Merla Labid, 53, whose
grandson got sick of bronchopneumonia and dropped out of sixth
grade.
NorAsia also promised residents of Argao that the pump prices
of gasoline, as well as prices of basic commodities, will go down
if the oil and gas exploration goes well. But the fishermen of
Brgy. Langtad are not convinced. “What will we do with low prices
if we have no money because there is no fish?” says Felisa Albandonido,
60.
In the meantime, the issue has resulted in the creation and strengthening
of local fisherfolk groups across the region. Fisherfolk now lead
organizing activities, public fora, pickets, and mass actions.
“We have seen in Asia and many parts of the globe that historically,
oil doesn’t translate into wealth of the people,” says Gilbert
Sape of People’s Coalition on Food Sovereignty (PCFS). On the
contrary, the experience of fisherfolk in Central Philippines
has again proven that potential oil discovery has led to even
greater poverty and destruction of the world’s natural wealth.
Excerpted and adapted from: “Hunger and plunder in the seas: Oil
and gas exploration causes destruction of marine environment and
food insecurity in Central Philippines,” Ilang-Ilang D. Quijano,
PAN AP and PCFS, November 2008,
http://www.foodsov.org/resources/hungerplunder.pdf
index
COMMUNITIES
AND TREE MONOCULTURES
-
Indonesia: The paper that brought violence and death
Once
more, the conflict over natural resources has played havoc on
humble people. This time the criminal action took place on the
settlement of Suluk Bongkal, Beringin, in the district of Bengkali,
Riau Province, Sumatra.
On
18th December 2008 hundreds of police and paramilitaries stormed
the village with tear gas and guns. A helicopter which appears
to belong to PT Arara Abadi dropped an incendiary bomb on the
village burning hundreds of houses allegedly with napalm. Tear
gas and fire arms were used. Two toddlers were killed and many
people were injured while others have been arrested. Some 400
villagers have fled into the forest in the mountains and just
58 people have remained in the village. Two days later, a helicopter
flew at low height over the tents of homeless villagers and bombarded
them with stones. They are under extreme psychological pressure.
The
attack was aimed at evicting the population who have been enduring
a long-standing land rights conflict with the plantation company
PT Arara Abadi, a subsidiary of the Sinar Mas Group, a company
owned by Eka Tjipta Wijaya, to which Asia Pulp and Paper (APP)
also belongs. Arara Abadi operates the largest industrial tree
plantation in Indonesia to supply wood to the pulp and paper factory
Indah Kiat. In Riau alone, Arara Abadi has concessions over more
than 350,000 hectares.
The
environmental organisation WALHI (Friends of the Earth Indonesia)
denounces that most of those tree plantations were set up in contravention
of Indonesian legislation: Forestry legislation has been ignored,
monocultures have been established on steep slopes which are at
an angle of more than 30°, in water catchment areas, in areas
with high biodiversity and on land belonging to local communities.
Local people are losing the right to their land, without receiving
fair and timely compensation and are becoming ever poorer as they
lose access to and control of the country's natural riches.
WALHI
believes that the violence in Suluk Bongkal, Bengkalis-Riau reflects
the way in which natural resources are being treated in Indonesia,
in a way which creates ever more conflicts and removes essential
resources from the Indonesian population.
The
conflict began in 1984, when PT Arara Abadi claimed the land and
destroyed 200 graves of the indigenous Sakai people. Since then
the conflict and violence has been escalating.
The
people must be given back sovereignty over the resources on which
their livelihoods depend. The government must restructure the
pulp and paper industry as well as reviewing licenses for large-scale
tree monocultures. "WALHI demands that the Indonesian government
withdraws the license from PT Arara Abadi, ends the violence against
people and all measures to isolate the village, releases those
who have been detained and returns all property stolen from the
people" says Berry Nahdian Forquan. "WALHI also demands
strong measures against those responsible for the violence."
"WALHI
is strongly opposed to any use of state violence against the population
for the purpose of defending industry interests" says WALHI’s
Director. "This police and paramilitary action constitutes
a violation of human rights", he states.
We
encourage readers to support demands by WALHI
that the state authorities must guarantee the human rights of
the population and investigate and punish those responsible for
this crime, and that the business permit granted to the plantation
company in question must be withdrawn and that the rights of the
population must not be sacrificed for companies’ economic interests,
by signing a
letter posted at Rettet den Regenwald’s website (http://www.regenwald.org/international/englisch/protestaktion.php?id=345)
to be sent to authorities in Indonesia.
The
working group for democracy, human rights and environmental protection
in Indonesia and East Timor, Watch Indonesia!, also demands “an
immediate investigation of this new human rights abuse, compensation
for the local population and a guarantee of their safety and rights,
as well as punishment of those responsible for the violence. We
demand that European governments and companies examine their links
to companies such as Sinar Mas which are responsible for human
rights abuses. Europe’s excessive consumption bears some of the
responsibility for the growing use of violence in land conflicts
over paper, palm oil, gold and other raw materials. Sumatra is
not the only place where people are being violently evicted for
mass production of paper.”
Article
based on press releases by WALHI, sent by Ade Fadli,
adefadli@walhi.or.id, and Watch Indonesia! at
http://lists.topica.com/lists/indonesia-act@igc.topica.com/read/message.html?sort=t&mid=813357752
index
- New WRM publication on resistance against industrial plantations
in Cameroon
This new publication
of the WRM Series on Plantations (*
) examines resistances of populations neighboring
two of Africa’s largest industrial tree plantations: the rubber
monoculture Hévéa-Cameroun (HEVECAM) and the oil palm plantation
Société Camerounaise de Palmeraies (SOCAPALM). The report
intends to contribute to fill a lack of information on the situation
around commercial plantations in Equatorial Africa.
Before the settlement
of the two monocultures, the region – situated in Southern Cameroon
near Kribi – was covered by coastal rainforest exceptionally rich
in biodiversity. It was sparsely populated by Bantu peasants-hunters
and Bagyeli hunters-gatherers (“Pygmies”), both of them tightly
dependant on forest resources. With the arrival of the plantations
in 1975 for HEVECAM and in 1978 for SOCAPALM, these populations
were displaced and the forest was cut and replaced by monocultures.
Today, the plantations are adjacent to about twenty Bantu and
Bagyeli communities which are in more or less open conflict against
these agro-industries, as the report explains.
By investigating
the conflict, it appears clearly that the role of the government
has always been central, notably through its determination of
the legal framework within which the agro-industries operate (land
property, terms
and conditions, social and environmental laws).
If it is true that the state must comply with the requirements
of international actors (IMF/World Bank, French government), it
remains nevertheless true that it is a key actor in the conflict,
roughly speaking always on the side of the agro-industries. The
relation between local populations and the state is in this respect
ambiguous: on one hand, it is perceived as distant and authoritarian
(“it is not your land but the land of the government” is the typical
answer villagers receive from authorities), and on the other hand,
the state is to a certain degree still respected (“we are not
going to take up arms against our own government!”).
In this conflicting
context, one may wonder why, in Cameroon, industrial plantations
have so much been promoted by the state – while their economic
performances often remained well below the expectations. An explanation
consists in showing the vested interests of the national elite
and/or the subordination of peasants to the requirements of capitalist
accumulation seen as the unique way towards “development”. In
short, the state has incontestably been positioned from the beginning
of the colonization – and at the request of the mother country’s
private sector – as the main actor imposing the transition to
capitalism, and this, in spite of the resistances of many local
communities. Incidentally, the first important nationalist movement
– the UPC (Union des Populations du Cameroun) of the socialist
Ruben Um Nyobé – originates from land ownership issues related
to the French colonization.
Yet the conflict
between local populations and HEVECAM–SOCAPALM is not only a struggle
over the land: it is also – and perhaps above all, now – an environmental
conflict. This is so because Bantu and Bagyeli do not claim the
control of the plantations’ territory as such, since the latter
has now, in their eyes, become useless. What they claim is: (1)
a compensation in any form – monetary, village plantations, or
infrastructure (roads, schools, etc.) – for the destruction of
what they see as their forest; and (2) the non-extension of HEVECAM–SOCAPALM,
that is, the preservation of their remaining customary forests.
It is for this purpose that the neighboring Bantu commonly claim
the employment of some of them among the high executives of the
companies.
However, as it is
often the case with rural impoverished populations, social conflicts
remain largely latent, poorly organized and without a clear political
dimension. Villagers often show a form of resignation. As the
state is the “supreme chief of the land” as well as of the legitimate
violence, there is an obligation of compliance. The protest’s
ground often remains the discourse, a situation that R. Oyono
names a “conflict of language”. In fact, the events described
in the publication correspond quite well to what J. Scott calls
the “everyday forms of resistance”. The latter refers to any act
by members of lower classes aimed at mitigating or refusing the
requirements (here: the land occupation and the obligation to
respect private property) of superior classes (here: HEVECAM–SOCAPALM’s
management and the state) or aimed at expressing their own requirements
(here: a compensation in a broad sense). This kind of resistance
went mostly unnoticed by historians and political scientists –
because it generally remains without written traces – although
it may represent the most common form of conflict among rural
populations. The latter are therefore not what external observers
have too often thought they were seeing, that is, globally passive
social groups which would sporadically burst in violent riots.
These everyday forms of resistance often are the weapons of the
powerless. They can take different forms such as sabotage, theft,
feigned ignorance, false agreement, concealment, non-commitment,
slandering, arson, etc. In our case, the thefts of the plantation’s
products as well as the fires are typical forms of resistance
taking place around HEVECAM–SOCAPALM. This kind of class struggle
requires no or little coordination and planning; it is generally
anonymous and avoids all direct confrontation with authorities
or superior classes in order to dodge repression. What is more,
through their accumulation, these resistances can have serious
effects on the interests of the ruling classes.
Regarding the relation
conflict–effects, J. Martínez-Alier points out that “the focus
should not be on ‘environmental conflict resolution’ but rather
(within Gandhian limits) on conflict exacerbation in order to
advance towards an ecological economy”. It is plausible indeed,
writes this author, that these kinds of environmental conflicts
– described as an “environmentalism of the poor” – will soon represent
an important social force social towards sustainability.
Julien-François Gerber
(JulienFrancois.Gerber@campus.uab.es)
(*) WRM Series number
13: "Résistances
contre deux géants industriels en forêt tropicale. Populations
locales versus plantations comerciales d’hévéas et de palmiers
à huile dans le Sud-Cameroun" by Julien-François
Gerber.
Only available in French.
It can be downloaded
from WRM's web site at:
http://www.wrm.org.uy/publications/Cameroun_fr.pdf
For printed copies please
contact: bookswrm@wrm.org.uy
index
-
Nigeria: Tyres at the expense of people’s livelihoods
Did
you ever imagine that the tyres of your car may have been produced
at the expense of a local community’s livelihood in Nigeria?
Most
of the world natural rubber production goes for the manufacturing
of tyres for different types of vehicles, ranging from cars, to
trucks, airplanes and so on. To have an idea of the huge amount
of tyres consumed, let’s take a look at the statistics in 2007
where 1.3 billion tires were produced.
South
East Asian countries (Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand) are the
major producers of rubber in the world while Africa accounts for
some 5% of global natural rubber production. Within Africa, the
main producing countries are Nigeria (300,000 hectares), Liberia
(100,000) and Cote d’Ivoire (70,000).
The
multinational companies Michelin and Bridgestone are the major
players in the world tire production. Both of them are active
in Africa, where they have set up their rubber plantations. Bridgestone/Firestone
Corporation has its conflictive plantations established in Liberia
and the sad history is well known (see previous articles on Bridgestone
in WRM Bulletins 134 and 102).
On
its part, the France-based Michelin has only recently started
to write its own history of human rights violations. It all started
on May 29 2007,
when over 3,500 hectares of Iguobazuwa Forest Reserve including
individual and communal farmlands were allocated to Michelin to
be converted into rubber plantations in an illegal deal without
the consent of community people. The invaded Iguobazuwa Forest
Reserve is located in Edo State at the southwestern part of Nigeria.
Iguobazuwa
Forest Reserve has been described in time past as one of the forest
and biodiversity-rich regions of Nigeria. Around Iguobazuwa, more
than 20,000 agrarian people live. They depend on the forest for
their daily livelihoods and furthermore they used to have their
farmlands around the forests to cultivate the land.
Without
having ever consulted the communities, the local government allocated
3,500 hectares of forest land to the French multinational company
to set up its rubber plantations.
When
Michelin arrived, it bulldozed the 3,500 hectares of forests and
also the people’s farmlands. Local people found themselves from
one day to another with both sources of livelihood –their forest
and farmlands- completely destroyed. Iguobazuwa communities lost
everything.
Their
farmlands allowed them to cultivate food for daily consumption,
but it was also a source of income as they used to sell some of
their produce at the local market. The surrounding forests used
to be their pharmacy, as well as the wood and water provider,
and their place for worship.
The
national environmental advocacy group, Environmental Rights Action
(ERA) that has been closely following the case, reports that “On
the eve of former Edo State’s Governor Lucky Igbinendion’s exit
from office (29th May, 2007), large expanses of Iguobazuwa forest
reserve measuring over three thousand five hundred hectares were
allotted to Michelin Nigeria Plc (owners of Osse river rubber
estate company), without due process. The approval, believed to
have been gotten through the back door, was done without due process
or the consent of the community people. This action, publicized
by Michelin and the Government as a sign of development, has brought
a serious setback to the agrarian communities, as Michelin’s rubber
plantation has destroyed their forest, forest resources, age-old
individual and communal farmlands, leaving the affected community
people uncompensated.”
Speaking
with ERA’s Forest & Biodiversity officer/Media relations,
Rita Osarogiagbon, the Chairman of Iguobazuwa Community Development
Association, Mr. Gabriel Igbinigie revealed that the community
people had once led a protest delegation to the former Edo State
Commissioner for Environment Mrs. Sara Adetugbogboh (now Commissioner
for Commerce and Industry), over an alleged illegal concession
of forest lands to Michelin Nigeria. He said ‘She reiterated that
the present arrangement with Michelin was done by the past and
not the current Government, adding that Michelin should go and
resolve the differences by paying compensation to affected community
members’”.
There
have been many attempts by different members of the communities
to make their voices heard but nothing has changed. Women, tired
of being passive, have decided to raise their voices and make
their demands heard both by the authorities and the company. During
the first days of November they gathered in a two day workshop
to share their experiences. As a result, they have come up with
a series of demands and are determined to get their lands back.
As
a fallout from the 2-day workshop held on the 4th -5th
November 2008, Michelin called some members of two communities
(Aifesoba and Iguobazuwa) out of the nine communities directly
impacted, and payed them compensation. One group from Iguobazuwa
was paid fully while the other community from Aifesoba was payed
what the community people described as peanuts, as according to
them, it was a far cry from the extent of destruction and was
not commensurate with the amount valued for the crops destroyed.
This
divide and rule tactics by Michelin, has caused serious disaffection
among communities and its members. Hence, a peaceful protest march
by men, women and children of the aggrieved communities was held
recently in Benin city to drive home their grievances. They solicited
for ERA/FoEN and the World Rainforest Movement’s continuous support
in ensuring justice.
A
woman from one of the adjacent communities in Iguobazuwa described
the situation in very clear terms when she said “I
don’t want money. I want my land back…if they give me one million
Naira today, I will still go broke, but if I have my land I can
always farm to take care of my family and possibly pass the land
on to my children.”
They
are facing serious threats linked both to food shortages -which
has resulted in the food price hike in the local markets and has
led to serious hunger and malnutrition- and also health risks
due to an outbreak of epidemics as a result of the extinction
of local medicinal plants resulting from Michelin’s conversion
of their forests to rubber plantations.
They
stated that they won’t stop until their land is given back, every
tree felled replanted and full compensation for the crops destroyed
is given. They know it is not an easy path and for accomplishing
it they know that they need international support.
Those
of you who wish to support these women can do so by signing on
to the letter at
that
will be sent to the Nigerian Government as well as to Michelin’s
offices.
Article
based on: Information from Environmental Rights Action, ERA Field
report 172, at:
http://www.eraction.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=105:field-report-172-michelin-converts-prime-forest-to-plantation&catid=5;
Michelen web site:
www.michelin.com;
http://www.michelin.com/corporate/front/templates/affich.jsp?codeRubrique=88&lang=EN,
http://www.michelin.com/corporate/front/templates/affich.jsp?codeRubrique=88&lang=EN;
Information gathered during the workshop conducted in Nigeria
on 4 and 5 of November within the joint WRM – FOE Project on the
role of the EU
in disempowering women in the South.
index
- Papua New Guinea: World Bank promoting oil palm and pushing
people into poverty
The
“Small Holder Agriculture Development Project” (SADP) is a World
Bank loan recently granted to the PNG Government. The SADP project,
a U$S 27.5 million credit “aims to enhance agricultural incomes
in a number of communities in West New Britain and Oro provinces.”
According to World Bank’s Country Manager for PNG Benson Ateng
this project is “a core element of the new Country Strategy, through
its support for poverty alleviation in two oil palm growing provinces.
The project aims to increase the revenues of oil palm farmers
through a community-based approach to agricultural development.”
However,
the local people in Oro Province, where plantations were also
developed with a previous World Bank loan and one of the targeted
areas under the SADP loan, are strongly opposed and denounce that
the loan “has been hijacked by the Oil Palm Plantation Companies
in Papua New Guinea to push for the expansion of oil palm rather
than expend it in areas that will enable greater economic benefits
for the agricultural dependent rural masses of Papua New Guinea.”
Instead
of promoting a diversified approach to agricultural development,
by means of this project smallholders will be encouraged and receive
funding to establish oil palm plantations on their lands.
According
to a letter received by the World Rainforest Movement, local communities
object to the loan being spent on oil palm expansion for the following
reasons:
“Firstly
oil palm is not the only option for active participation
in the cash economy for the rural population as is the view of
our Government and the multinational oil palm companies operating
in our country. The various assessments have been focused on oil
palm rather than alternatives. In the Northern Province, the assessment
teams held discussion only with the stakeholders in the oil palm
industry. These consultations also failed to convene meetings
with non oil palm growers in oil palm growing areas. Therefore,
the views presented to support the loan submission do not reflect
a broad cross section of the community.
Secondly,
we are of the view that for this SADP Loan to benefit more agricultural
dependent families the government should focus on developing and
maintaining road access to rural communities to enable greater
participation by the bulk of the population.
Any
further expansion of oil palm will not be in the best interest
of the nation as it will have serious negative effects on our
social and terrestrial environment. It has already contributed
to major losses of forests and biodiversity in our country bringing
with it social and environmental problems which the oil palm companies
have refused blatantly to accept responsibility.
We
are aware of the fact that the World Bank is very well informed
of the issues as a direct impact by the oil palm industry however
sees it fit to grant another loan to the Government of PNG in
the pretence of agriculture development as a strategy to alleviate
poverty whilst the fact remain the multinational corporations
profit from the loans while we repay these loans.
In
fact the previous World Bank loan for the Oro Expansion Oil Palm
Project in Oro province has done quite the contrary from reducing
poverty. Some of our people have suddenly become landless who
will pioneer a class of poor. This is something we have not known
since our ancestors.”
Based on the above
considerations, local communities call on the World Bank to either
review the loan conditions to promote alternatives other than
oil palm or to cancel the loan.
On
their part, palm oil companies are lobbying the government to
push for the funds to be released quickly as they already have
their own implementation plans ready. Yet, there is still time
to make things change and that is exactly what the local people
from the northern Oro Province are pushing for: to stop this monocultural
approach and push for a diversified future.
They
are requesting international support and have drafted a letter
that will be sent to the World Bank authorities as well as to
the PNG government. The letter in full is available at:
Those
who would like to support the letter, can do so by sending your
name, organization and country to the email:
support@wrm.org.uy before February 20th.
index
-
Plantations, poverty and power: Europe's role in the expansion
of the pulp industry in the South
Before
the current global economic meltdown, the pulp industry had ambitious
expansion plans. Although the industry was closing mills in the
North, it was expanding dramatically in the South where about
five million tons of new capacity was due to start up each year
for the next five years. Vast areas of monoculture tree plantations
have been established to feed raw material to huge new megamills,
particularly in Latin America, southeast Asia and South Africa.
Today,
however, industry analysts are talking about overcapacity in terms
of a "wall of pulp". Between September and December
2008, global pulp production shrank by more than 2 million tonnes.
Hardest hit is southeast Asia, where Asia Pulp and Paper and APRIL
have reduced pulp production by a total of 580,000 tonnes. In
Brazil, Aracruz is desperately trying to save money after losing
about US$2 billion on investment in derivatives and has scrapped
(for the time being, anyway) its proposed 1.5 million tons a year
pulp mill at Guaiba in Rio Grande do Sul.
Pulp
mills do not build themselves any more than plantations plant
themselves. One of the reasons for the industry's current problems
is a conflict of interest. European companies, aid agencies and
institutions play a significant role in promoting and financing
the expansion of the industry in the South. They promote this
expansion not as a form of "development" but because
it is beneficial to European industry.
My
new report, "Plantations, poverty and power", looks
at the role of European companies and institutions in promoting
the expansion of the pulp and paper industry in the global South.
The report replies to the lies that plantation proponents repeat
to justify the expansion of industrial tree plantations in the
South: that plantations provide jobs, relieve pressure on forests,
are only established on degraded land, restore soils, sequester
carbon and help meet a "global demand" for paper. The
biggest lie of all is that plantations are forests.
The
reality for people living in the areas where plantations have
been established is that plantations have destroyed their livelihoods
and sucked streams and rivers dry. The few jobs created are dangerous,
poorly paid and often seasonal. Pulp mills are among the most
polluting of industrial processes. Among the reasons that the
South looks so attractive is that regulation is less strict. Trees
grow faster in the tropics, labour is cheaper and governments
provide a series of subsidies to encourage the expansion of the
industry. But another important reason, which the industry is
more reluctant to acknowledge, is that in several countries, the
area of industrial tree plantations expanded rapidly under brutal
military dictatorships, when protest against the impacts of plantations
was either extremely dangerous or impossible. Examples include
South Africa, Chile, Brazil, Thailand and Indonesia.
The
report looks at five pulp projects in detail: Veracel (Brazil);
Sappi (Swaziland); Advance Agro (Thailand); Asia Pulp and Paper
(Indonesia); Botnia (Uruguay). Without generous subsidies it is
unlikely that any of these projects would have gone ahead. The
projects provided a series of lucrative contracts for European,
Nordic and North American consulting firms, machinery companies,
chemical suppliers and engineering firms. All of these projects
have resulted in serious problems for local communities.
This
is followed by profiles of some of the European actors involved
in promoting, designing and building pulp projects in the South.
Pöyry is the largest forestry consulting firm in the world and
has facilitated (and benefited from) the expansion of the pulp
industry in many countries, both North and South. The Confederation
of European Paper Industries supports the European pulp and paper
industry regardless of its impacts on people and forests. The
Asian Development Bank, the International Finance Corporation
and the European Investment Bank provide examples of multilateral
aid agency support to the pulp industry. Each of these aid agencies
has different standards which it is supposed to apply to potentially
destructive projects such as industrial tree plantations and the
pulp industry. In each case, the standards (and the way in which
the standards are applied) are inadequate to prevent the impacts
on local communities and the environment.
The
report looks in detail at two sets of voluntary standards: the
UN Food and Agriculture Organisation's voluntary guidelines for
"planted forests", and the Forest Stewardship Council's
certification scheme. Both organisations support the pulp industry
and the expansion of industrial tree plantations. By defining
plantations as forests, the FAO helps create the illusion that
plantations are not destructive, but simply another form of forest.
FSC supports the pulp industry by certifying industrial tree plantations
as well managed, failing in the process to address even the most
egregious impacts of industrial tree plantations.
The
report concludes with a suggestion for an alternative way that
the pulp industry could develop, which would provide the paper
needed to meet local demand, based on small-scale pulp and paper
mills using local raw materials. Paper could and should be produced
without destroying forests, grasslands and local people's livelihoods.
A first step in moving towards a less destructive pulp and paper
industry would be to stop the subsidies which help to keep the
status quo. No more development funds should be used to facilitate
the expansion of the global pulp industry and its associated industrial
tree plantations.
By
Chris Lang, http://chrislang.org
Chris
Lang's new report, "Plantations, poverty and power: Europe's
role in the expansion of the pulp industry in the South",
can be downloaded here: http://www.wrm.org.uy/publications/Plantations_Poverty_Power.pdf
index
THE CLIMATE CHANGE BUSINESS
- Charcoal disguised as “biochar” sold as another profitable climate
tech-fix
According to a growing, vocal and very well-connected group of
scientists, entrepreneurs and lobbyists, the best if not the only
way of humanity surviving climate change and solving the food
and energy crisis is to plough billions of tonnes of charcoal
into the soil every year. They call charcoal used in this way
“biochar” and claim that it will lock up carbon for thousands
of years, provide energy through the same process which produces
the charcoal, greatly increase plant yields and stop deforestation
(caused, according to many of them, mainly by small farmers who
slash and burn forests because they cannot keep their soil fertile).
However bizarre and unfounded these claims may be, they are being
taken very seriously in high-level policy circles.
A keynote speaker at the 2008 conference of the International
Biochar Initiative (IBI), which is the main biochar lobbying forum,
was the Australian Tim Flannery. He chairs the Copenhagen Climate
Council which is organising the World Business Summit on Climate
Change in May, ’09, which will put forward business and pro-business
leaders’ ‘recommendations’ to UNFCCC. Many IBI members and supporters
are similarly well-connected and able to influence high-level
policy decisions.
The IBI achieved major successes at the Poznan UNFCCC Conference:
Following a UNCCD submission in Poznan, biochar has been included
into the “dialogue for the post 2012 climate regime”. 1 Furthermore,
the government of Micronesia proposed that biochar should play
a vital role in mitigating climate change. Post-2012 CDM credits
for biochar could be formally approved at Copenhagen.
If it is endorsed then a statement made by Flannery about “biochar”
might well prove correct: “With the appropriate …promotion and
adoption, it will change our world forever”, though, there is
every reason to reach the opposite conclusion regarding the second
part of his sentence: “and very much for the better”.2
Fine-grained charcoal is a by-product from biomass pyrolysis,
a form of bioenergy production which yields two types of fuel;
bio-oil and syngas as well as the charcoal. Both can be used for
heat and power and they can also be further refined into second-generation
agrofuels, i.e. into fuel for cars and potentially planes. It
thus fits in perfectly with the push for biorefineries and tree
plantations to fuel cars, but it does not depend on those. Pyrolysis
for heat and power could be rapidly scaled up, provided that ‘market
hurdles’ can be overcome. If pyrolysis companies could earn money
from turning the biochar into patented fertilisers (with plantation
expansion guaranteeing high profits from fertilisers), and if,
on top of that they could attract carbon credits, the industry
could take off very quickly. For companies such as Best Energies,
Eprida, Dynamotive and Biomass Energy and Carbon, getting biochar
included into carbon trading could make the difference between
possible bankruptcy or, as Best Energies put it “win[ning] the
current land grab in next-generation fuels”3.
IBI lobbyists promote an image of a future industry which primarily
benefit small farmers and other villagers, through small pyrolysis
units and charcoal-making cooking stoves, yet many of their spokespeople
call for “biochar” ‘carbon sequestration’ targets which would
make half a billion hectares of biochar plantations sound conservative.
“Biochar” thus fits in with other false climate solutions based
on large-scale plantations and land-grabbing, from agrofuels to
‘carbon sink’ tree plantations and GE trees. The scientific rationale
for “biochar” is even shakier than for many other false solutions:
Agrofuels, however harmful, can at least power cars. Applying
charcoal to soils, on the other hand has not been shown to reliably
sequester carbon or make soil more fertile on its own. The ‘evidence’
for the claims is based primarily on terra preta, ancient soils
in Central Amazonia, formed hundreds or even thousands of years
ago. Terra preta was created by small farmers who, over many generations,
mixed charcoal as well as compost, animal and fish bones, river
sediments, manure and diverse biomass residues into the soil.
There is no evidence that carbon-rich, fertile soils can be recreated
simply – or quickly – by applying large quantities of charcoal
to fields.
So far only one “biochar” field study has been published in peer-reviewed
journals. Researchers found that, charcoal additions to soil made
synthetic nitrogen fertilisers work better. Yields for plants
grown with char and fertilisers were still considerably lower
than for plants grown solely with chicken manure. Using nothing
but charcoal, however, resulted in zero plant growth after two
harvests. This is why a lot of the ‘biochar research’ actually
involves an ammonium bicarbonate fertiliser, of which char is
only one component. At least during this short-term study, most
of the carbon remained in the soil, but other studies indicate
that even this is not guaranteed.
A study in Kenya showed that over the first 20-30 years after
biomass burning, soils lost 72% of the carbon contained in charcoal.4
Initial results of a Colombian field study show that plots with
charcoal had higher yields but lost 60% more soil carbon than
control plots over two years.5 This makes claims about biochar
having the potential to sequester carbon on a geo-engineeering
scale little more than hot air.
The push for “”biochar today can be compared with that for agrofuels
around 2002: Unfounded promises to solve the climate crisis and
poverty with one stroke, while, behind the scenes, a massive lobbying
effort is paving the way for artificial markets through state
support. By the end of this year, the biochar lobby could well
succeed in getting “biochar” into the CDM and other carbon trading
schemes from 2012, possibly with ‘double credits’, as well as
gaining other state support. Once this is in place, major industry
investment and plantation expansion will follow. Several Indonesian
pulp and paper companies, the executive director of the Indonesian
palm oil association, Embrapa in Brazil, the Bolivian agribusiness
firm DESA in Santa Cruz and Shell are amongst those already promoting
the idea. The question is whether civil society groups and movements
will be able to organise quickly enough and succeed in stopping
the push for industrial biochar and, above all, carbon trading
in charcoal as a soil amendment(“biochar”). If we fail this year
then we could soon find ourselves fighting against another wave
of land-grabbing and forest and other ecosystem destruction.
By Almuth Ernsting, Biofuelwatch, http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk,
e-mail: info@biofuelwatch.org.uk
References:
For fuller information see in particular Section 4 of “Climate
Geo-engineering with ‘Carbon Negative’ Bioenergy”, www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/docs/cnbe/cnbe.html
1. www.biochar.org/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=51&Itemid=3
2. www.biochar-international.org/timflannery.html
3. www.bestenergies.com/aboutus.html
4. www.springerlink.com/content/0h15324rrg7k5061/
5. www.biochar-international.org/images/J_Major_biogeochem.pdf
index
