Venezuela:
Seizure of Smurfit tree plantations sets new course for the future
In 1999, shortly after
he was elected, President Hugo Chávez received a letter from WRM
(see
http://www.wrm.org.uy/bulletin/22/Venezuela2.html) in which
we expressed our deep concern over the serious impacts on peasant
communities in the state of Portuguesa generated by the monoculture
tree plantations operated by Smurfit Cartón de Venezuela (a subsidiary
of the Smurfit Kappa Group, a leading producer of cardboard for
the European market).
The letter referred to the observations made
during a WRM visit to the area in 1998 – before Chávez took office
– at the request of local communities.
The conflict between
Smurfit and the peasant communities in the region was a reflection
of the incompatibility of two productive models: the agribusiness
model based on large-scale monocultures, and the small- to medium-scale
peasant farming model based on a diversity of crops.
Since its arrival in
the region, Smurfit’s operations had serious repercussions for poor
local peasant communities with limited access to land. The company
started out by deforesting the area to harvest timber, which altered
the course of waterways and consequently led to the loss of local
animals, fish and plants that had served as sources of food for
the local population. After destroying the forests, the company
began to plant fast-growing tree species – eucalyptus, pine and
Gmelina arborea –
which have a drastic impact on underground water reserves due to
the large amounts of water they consume.
During his visit to
the area, the WRM representative was informed by the local people,
among other things, about the “major impacts on the water a few
months after Smurfit’s plantations were established. As in the rest
of the world, these impacts are the result of the high consumption
of water by these fast-growing plantations. But in this case, there
is the added factor of the deliberate destruction of waterways with
bulldozers, used to flatten the terrain in order to plant more trees
(it seems to be company policy that every centimetre of land must
be planted) and the destruction of gallery forests that protect
and regulate river basins. The result (denied, of course, by the
‘experts’ periodically brought in by the company to demonstrate
the indemonstrable) is that the streams are drying up and the volume
of water in wells is constantly shrinking. Local animals, fish and
plants that provided much of the food resources for the local population
are also rapidly disappearing, as their natural habitats are replaced
by green deserts of trees and more forests are cut down to feed
the pulp mill. ‘I have never seen a bird sit on one of those trees,’
say the locals. They also say that rabbits formerly abounded in
the area, but are now only found a long distance away from the plantations.
They say that they used to hunt armadillos and deer, and that they
ate fish from the streams, but now, because of the plantations,
these have practically disappeared.” (See
http://www.wrm.org.uy/paises/Venezuela/discordia.html)
The conflict came to
a head in 1997. An aerial spaying
with herbicides carried out by Smurfit destroyed 190 hectares of
crops and caused the poisoning of local schoolchildren. Additionally,
Smurfit purchased La Productora, a large estate that local peasants
had expected to be turned over to them as part of the national agrarian
reform programme. The estate had been formerly used by its owners
for commercial agriculture and cattle raising, but peasants from
the neighbouring communities of Morador and Tierra Buena were allowed
free access to the property for fishing, hunting and recreational
purposes. When the estate was taken over by Smurfit, the situation
changed dramatically: the land was occupied by monoculture tree
plantations and surrounded with barbed wire fences, attack dogs
and armed guards to keep people out.
On 14 July 1997, acting under the protection of Venezuelan legislation
that prohibits large landholdings and places priority on the allocation
of agricultural land, the peasants occupied La Productora. The response
was brutal repression (see WRM Bulletin No. 18).
The letter sent by
WRM in 1999 to the newly elected Venezuelan president and the Venezuelan
Senate Environmental Committee, addressing this critical situation,
constituted an international action in support of the struggle of
these communities. As the letter stated: “Among the multiple problems
generated by this corporation [Smurfit] in that region, the more
apparent are those related to the impacts of its extensive monoculture
tree plantations on water, flora and wildlife, which result in serious
problems for local peoples’ livelihoods” (see WRM Bulletin No. 22).
In 2004, WRM once again
called on the Venezuelan president to provide government support
for the area’s peasants to enter into negotiations with Smurfit,
at a time when the company appeared to be willing to negotiate with
the local communities. (See the letter at
http://www.wrm.org.uy/paises/Venezuela/carta181104.html)
In processes like these, viewed from a historical perspective, tangible
and measurable results are difficult to achieve in the short term.
This is certainly true in the case of the struggle of local communities
against Smurfit and its large-scale tree plantations.
In
2007, after “fulfilling all of the requirements of the law,” the
Venezuelan National Land Institute (INTI) repossessed from Smurfit
the more than 2,000 hectares of land encompassed by La Productora,
declaring it as underused land. Since then, this land has been allocated
to agricultural production projects to be undertaken by around 700
peasant farmers organized in 32 cooperatives, in the framework of
the creation of “a new system of social production that will allow
peasant farmers to take advantage of the land’s vocation and become
integrated in the productive apparatus.” (1)
Now, more than ten years after the abovementioned conflicts and
the action spearheaded by WRM against monoculture tree plantations,
the Venezuelan government has taken control of another 1,500 hectares
of Smurfit’s plantations in the state of Lara, currently being used
for eucalyptus and Gmelina arborea
monocultures. The seizure was effected on the grounds that the land
was not being used in a accordance with government regulations.
The eucalyptus trees planted for paper production “suck the water
from underground, and the rivers are drying up,” observed President
Chávez. (2)
At a time when the global corporate economic model is in crisis,
it is vital to guarantee access to food, and this is fully understood
in Venezuela. “We are going to use this wood (from the eucalyptus
trees) in a rational manner, and we are going to plant other things
there (…) like beans, corn, sorghum, cassava, yams,” pledged the
Venezuelan president. (3)
The time has come to move away from productive models such
as large-scale tree plantations, which
are highly profitable for a small few but disastrous for the environment
and for local communities who depend on natural resources for their
livelihoods. In this case, the Venezuelan government has finally
recognized this fact: “The transnational corporation Smurfit, the
cardboard producer, plants a specific type of tree which benefits
only the corporation’s owners.”
The decision to seize these plantations, in addition to its importance
for local peasant communities, also has symbolic power in setting
a course towards food sovereignty, towards the dismantling of large-scale,
destructive monoproduction models. The path to achieving these goals
remains part of a long, arduous process.
Additional information was gathered from the following sources:
(1)
Inti inició en Portuguesa rescate de finca La Productora,
http://www.rnv.gov.ve/noticias/index.php?act=ST&f=19&t=45113
(2)
“Chávez expropió los terrenos de la papelera irlandesa Kappa”, AP,
http://www.elpais.com.uy/09/03/06/ultmo_402921.asp
(3)
Chávez anuncia la intervención de los terrenos de la papelera Smurfit
Kappa, EFE,
http://www.abc.es/20090306/internacional-iberoamerica
/chavez-anuncia-intervencion-terrenos-200903060236.html
