OUR
VIEWPOINT
- The FAO has no time to be “distracted” from its mission of promoting
plantations
The FAO has recently
released the 2009 edition of its “State of the World’s Forests”
which, as usual, includes tree plantations as being part of the
world’s “forests”. In spite of all the evidence documented by
WRM and others proving that monoculture tree plantations result
in social and environmental disaster –including forest destruction-
the FAO continues to provide a “green” disguise to the plantations
industry by defining them as “planted forests”.
In its recent report,
when describing the situation in Latin America, the FAO says that
“planted forests will increase”, but that “it is unlikely that
the increased planting rate will be sufficient to offset continuing
deforestation.” In FAO’s language, this means that if a land surface
equivalent to the deforested area were to be planted, for instance,
with monoculture eucalyptus plantations, deforestation would have
been “offset” and thereby no deforestation would have occurred.
To say it in the simplest possible terms, according to the FAO,
5 bananas minus 5 apples = 0 bananas.
How
can a biodiverse tropical forest be equated with a monoculture
alien tree plantation? For the FAO the answer is simple: because
both produce wood. Although the FAO does not clearly explain this,
an example can suffice to prove it. Until the year 2000, the FAO
did not define rubber tree plantations as “planted forests”. However,
in 2000 rubber plantations suddenly became “planted forests”.
The main reason for this miracle was that rubber prices had slumped
and that rubber trees were been cut and industrialized into wood
products. They thus became wood providers and therefore deserved
being classified as “planted forests”, because for the FAO a forest
is simply a wood-producing system.
This
is obviously absurd. It is plainly clear that monoculture tree
plantations have nothing in common with forest ecosystems. While
the latter provide habitats and food to countless species of native
flora and fauna, the former are basically void of biodiversity.
While forests regulate the hydrological cycle, plantations deplete
water resources. While plantations result in the export of soil
nutrients, forests recycle them constantly. While forests provide
livelihoods to forest-dependent peoples, plantations destroy the
resources they depend upon.
It
is important to stress that the definition of forests is not an
academic or linguistic discussion: it is a political issue having
serious social and environmental consequences at the ground level.
Defining plantations as forests empowers the corporate sector
-particularly plantation companies- and disempowers local communities
opposing them to protect their livelihoods. The FAO continues
playing this role by refusing to change its definition.
Fortunately, the FAO is becoming more and more isolated on this
issue. In 2008, a group of over 100 forestry professionals and
students from 29 different countries released a statement expressing
that “Throughout the world, governments are actively promoting
the expansion of large-scale monoculture tree plantations, despite
the serious social and environmental impacts already witnessed
on existing plantations. The promoters of this model claim that
plantations are forests, which simply is not true. Plantations
are not forests. Unfortunately, many of our colleagues in the
forestry sector support this model, and our teaching institutions
continue to train new generations of forestry professionals to
perpetuate and expand this type of forestry model, aimed at seeing
forests where they do not exist.”
Last September, a WRM representative presented the foresters’
statement to FAO officials in Rome and they admitted their concerns
about certain types of tree plantations -which they recognized
as having negative impacts. However, their response was that for
the moment the organisation is unwilling to change the definition
because this would be “a distraction to the FAO-led process of
guidelines for improving plantations.”
This
is unbelievable. How can a powerful organization such as FAO pretend
that it cannot carry out two related tasks at the same time? Is
it so difficult to change a definition while simultaneously continuing
to lead a process for providing guidelines for plantations? The
obvious answer is that the FAO is unwilling to change a definition
that has proven to be so effective for the expansion of plantations
under the guise of “planted forests”.
The fact is that
the FAO continues to be a major actor in the promotion of plantations.
Evidence on this is also provided in its recent report on the
state of the world’s forests. Analysing the potential impacts
of the current economic crisis on the forest sector, the report
suggests “the pursuit of a ‘green path’ to development”, including
–surprise surprise- “through afforestation and reforestation”.
In FAO language, those two words -afforestation and reforestation-
mean the same type of monoculture tree plantations that are impacting
on people and the environment. Such plantations will be
not only provided with the “planted forests” disguise, but also
with fake social and environmental credentials through FAO’s voluntary
guidelines for “improving” them. This, and not the organization’s
claim that it has no time to be “distracted”, explains its reluctance
to adopt a serious definition of forests that excludes plantations
as such.
Whether the FAO likes
it or not, more and more people throughout the world are raising
their voices stating the simple and obvious truth : plantations
are not forests! The FAO can pretend to be deaf, but the message
is increasingly loud and clear.
index
COMMUNITIES AND
FORESTS
- Bolivia: For the protection of the last isolated indigenous
peoples
We
recently received a publication released in 2008 by FOBOMADE and
Rainforest Foundation Norway, written by Pablo Cingolani, Álvaro
Díez Astete and Vincent Brackelaire and entitled “Toromonas. La
lucha por la defensa de los Pueblos Indígenas Aislados en Bolivia”
(Toromonas: the struggle for the defence of the Isolated Indigenous
Peoples in Bolivia), which presents an exhaustive account of the
situation of isolated indigenous peoples in the region.
Among
the various articles that make up the publication, we would like
to highlight one that addresses the Bolivian government’s adoption
of Resolution 48, a historic measure in defence of an isolated
indigenous community:
“The
government of Bolivia, headed by the first indigenous president
to ever take power in the country, Juan Evo Morales Ayma, adopted
on 15 August 2006 a historic resolution with regard to the situation
of the last indigenous peoples living in isolation in Bolivian
territory. Through this resolution, the president declared as
an Absolute Reserve Area the lands encompassed by the Madidi National
Park and Integrated Management Natural Area (PNANMI). Madidi,
a national protected area that spans almost 19,000 square kilometres
and is one of the planet’s most important reservoirs of biodiversity,
is home to one of the last peoples living in isolation in Bolivia
and the world: the presumed descendants of the Toromona people
(see WRM Bulletin No. 105), who cut off all contact with Bolivian
society in the early 20th century in order to escape the genocide
of the rubber boom era.
“This
was the first time in the history of the Bolivian republic – in
which major first nations peoples such as the Aymara, Quechua
and Guaraní coexist – that the Bolivian state has taken action
to address the issue of indigenous peoples living in isolation,
initial contact and/or situations of extreme vulnerability.
Within
the complex and colossal issue of indigenous reality, it is currently
believed that there are at least nine ethnic groups or segments
of ethnic groups living in isolation in Bolivia, although there
are none classified as living in ‘initial contact’.
“The
isolated communities for which there are varying degrees of evidence,
but which are all believed to exist, are the following:
*
Department of La Paz: Toromona, Araona, Ese Ejja
*
Department of Santa Cruz: M’bya Yuki, Ayoreode
*
Department of Pando: Pacahuara
*
Department of Beni: Yuracaré, T’simanes, Mosetene
“In
this new country that we are striving to build, repairing the
damages of a hidden and forgotten genocide, healing historic wounds,
moving past scandalous omissions, the adoption of Resolution 48
and the consequent creation of an absolute reserve for the protection
of an indigenous community living in isolation in the Amazon rainforest
is not only a historic landmark. It also represents the possibility
of building, at the same time, a platform for effective action
by the plurinational and intercultural state being established
on the basis of the constituent assembly to save these peoples
from extermination and guarantee their human rights.
"Resolution
48 – which represents the crystallization of years of work around
the situation of the people living in isolation within the borders
of Madidi National Park – sets a strategic precedent for the protection
of isolated indigenous peoples in Bolivia, and should serve as
a much-needed visible and practical platform for future government
actions that draw not only on national power and commitment but
also on the widespread international solidarity regarding this
issue, since the last isolated indigenous peoples in Bolivia are
also some of the last isolated indigenous peoples in the world.
“In
addition to the resolution to create an absolute reserve area
to protect the isolated indigenous people of Madidi, there are
also a series of actions underway to support and strengthen mixed-raced
communities in the surrounding area, as a way of ending their
tragic dependence on a predatory economy which, at the same time,
represented the main threat to the ethnic group that is to be
protected through the resolution adopted.
“From
the perspective of an integrated vision and the search for the
projection of democratic intercultural communitarianism within
the state and society as a whole, these isolated indigenous peoples
– who live in total interdependence with the land they occupy,
where biodiversity has been preserved though ancestral balance
– have become an archetype of the new socio-state paradigm. Not
only can we consider them a cultural treasure, but also as a living
testimony and reflection of the fact that another society, one
that is more humane, more sound and more creative, is possible.”
Extracted
and adapted from “Zona de Reserva Absoluta Toromona: una medida
histórica del gobierno de Evo Morales Ayma hacia una política
nacional de protección integral de los últimos pueblos indígenas
aislados de Bolivia”, by Álvaro Díez Astete and Pablo Cingolani,
an article in “Toromonas. La lucha por la defensa de los Pueblos
Indígenas Aislados en Bolivia”, written by Pablo Cingolani, Álvaro
Díez Astete and Vincent Brackelaire and published by FOBOMADE
and Rainforest Foundation Norway in 2008. Available at:
http://www.cebem.org/admin/cmsfiles/publicaciones/Toromonas_.pdf
index
-
India: Lepchas arrested for opposing mega hydro project
The old Lepcha tribe were isolated forest dwellers living harmoniously
with nature over centuries. They were hunters and gatherers
leading nomadic lives until mid-nineteenth century when they began
practicing settled agriculture. They are known
for their rich cultural heritage and for being sacred and restricted,
especially to outsiders.
The
Lepchas inhabit the Dzongu valley in the tiny Himalayan state
of Sikkim, close to the Chinese border. The area, with dense forest
cover, has been officially demarcated as a reserve for the community.
It borders the Khangchendzonga Biosphere Reserve and is located
about 70 km north to the State Capital, Gangtok, bounded to the
south-east by the Teesta river which the Lepchas consider their
holy river. The Teesta traverses a 414 km distance cutting across
Sikkim, parts of Darjeeling hills and the plains of Jalpaiguri
before submerging into the Brahmaputra in Bangladesh. With its
dense forest cover and rich biodiversity, the Teesta river basin
hosts one of the 25 biodiversity hotspots in the world and any
obstacle in the
natural flow of the turbulent river would eventually bring
about disaster to
the local communities.
In
2003, an initiative was launched to construct 162 massive hydroelectric
schemes across 16 Indian states, nearly always located in the
impoverished and tribal areas of the north. Seven projects are
proposed within the Dzongu Reserve, in the river Teesta and its
tributaries, such as the Rangyang river where the 280mw Panan
Hydropower Project is being projected. The project has so far
got environmental clearance but is yet to get forest clearance
and clearance from the Central Electricity Authority (CEA). It
is developed by Himagiri Hydro Energy Ltd promoted by the Nagarjuna
Fertilisers.
The
setting up of mega projects is being opposed by the Lepchas who
consider them a threat not only to the environment but also to
their traditions and culture. They fear that the river’s disappearance
into a series of tunnels will be accompanied by their own marginalisation.
Two hydropower projects already built, coupled with other factors,
have started taking their toll: landslips and landslides in the
region have increased.
Lepchas
have come together to create the Affected Citizens of Teesta (ACT)
and launch a campaign in the classic form of a satyagraha
(non-violence movement) that includes marches, fasts and suchlike.
ACT has been spearheading the protests in Sikkim against mega
hydro projects, especially in the Protected Lepcha Reserve of
Dzongu. They have managed to stall four out of the six hydro projects
located inside Dzongu and now they are in for the Panan Hydropower
Project.
Recently,
on last February 7, Sikkim police arrested 43 protestors including
7 women and two juveniles of the ACT based on a complaint filed
by the general manager of the Himagiri Hydro Energy Private Limited,
developers of the Panan Hydropower project. The arrested activists
included Dawa Lepcha, General Secretary, Tenzing Lepcha and Gyatso
Lepcha, the President of the Concerned Lepchas of Sikkim (CLOS)
and the Vice President of the Sangha of Dzongu. Two juvenile protestors
were, however, released. The rest was taken in to police custody
where they were kept in prison on charges of arson and trespass
at the project dam site.
This
is the first time in the history of Dzongu that police went inside
the Lepcha Reserve and arrested so many people.
ACT
had been demanding unconditional release of the arrested members
on grounds of arbitrary arrests. They finally applied for a bail
petition and on March 9, the ACT activists were granted bail.
"Dzongu
is all that is left to us, how can we let them destroy it?"
Article
based on information provided by Souparna Lahiri, e-mail: souparna.lahiri@gmail.com,
and Voice of Sikkim,
http://www.voiceofsikkim.com/ACT/Environment/ACT/
index
-
Save the Mekong, a coalition to keep the river alive
The
Mekong River is one of the world’s major rivers and flows along
4,350 km (2,703 miles) draining an area of 795,000 km2. (1) As
Aviva Imhof from IRN beautifully describes it, “the Mekong River
is a changing kaleidoscope of cultures, geography and plant and
animal life. From a small trickle in Tibet, the river quickly
gathers steam and carves magnificent gorges through Yunnan Province
of China. It then turns into what it remains for most of the rest
of its journey: a fast-flowing, meandering waterway that forms
the heart and soul of mainland Southeast Asia.” (2)
The
river system is also the base of the regional food security as
long as its wealthy aquatic biodiversity, which is second only
to the Amazon, is not only home to migratory fish stocks and endangered
species but also supports one of the most productive inland fisheries
in the world, especially small-scale fisheries. Also farmers are
able to thrive on rain-fed rice farming and freshwater fish. Thus,
over sixty million villagers from
China, Burma, Thailand, Lao PDR, Cambodia and Vietnam who live
in and around and share the Mekong River depend on it; for them
water is more than a source of life, it is a way of life.
Yet,
deaf to all warnings and blind to the potential
harm to the rivers' biological and cultural richness as
well as the survival of villages, the governments
of Cambodia, Laos and Thailand are planning a series of
eleven big hydropower dams for the lower stretches of the Mekong
River. The purpose is to cater for increasing urban electricity
hunger and even export electricity to distant cities. Big consortiums
of hydropower companies might be rubbing their hands at the perspective
of huge profits out of replacing a “river of life” with an industrialized
series of reservoirs.
The
dams put in peril the ecology of both river and forest ecosystems
of the Mekong river system as well as the lives of the millions
of riverside people who depend upon the river for their income
and food security (see WRM Bulletin Nº 136) and each of the water
resource development projects proposed for the Mekong River basin
has the potential to damage the ecology. Evaluation studies by
the Mekong Resource Center have confirmed that the dams threaten
the future viability and sustainability of the Mekong's fish and
fisheries as long as they would obstruct
fish migration, degrade aquatic habitats and affect the flow regime.
Studies also revealed that “there is no existing mitigation technology
that can effectively deal with the barrier effect of mainstream
dams on fish migrations” and that “(T)he cost of replacing this
essentially-free resource with another source of food, income
and employment would be prohibitive. With this perspective, it
is clear that the conservation of capture fisheries is crucial
to maintaining food security and social stability.”(3)
Large-scale generation –for whom and for what?-- generated at
a remote site and transported by long distance transmission lines
to the consumer is one of the key underlying issues of the problem.
As
a response, non-government organizations, local people, academics,
journalists, artists and ordinary people from within the Mekong
countries and internationally sharing a concern about the future
of the Mekong River, joined to create a coalition. Save the Mekong
was created “to protect the river, its resources and people’s
livelihoods, and encourage policymakers to adopt more sustainable
ways of meeting people’s energy and water needs.”
The
coalition has created a website <http://www.savethemekong.org>
and carries out a campaign urging Prime Ministers of Cambodia,
Laos, Thailand and Vietnam to keep the Mekong flowing freely.
In March and April, coalition
members will be collecting signed postcards from people in the
countries who would be affected by the projects and around the
world. They invite anyone to support the campaign by adding one’s
name to the corresponding online petition at <http://tinyurl.com/Save-the-Mekong>,
asking the governments to Save the Mekong and protect the livelihoods
of those who depend on it.
(1)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mekong
(2)
World Rivers Review, International Rivers Network,
http://www.internationalrivers.org/files/WRRjune2007Final.pdf
(3)
http://www.mekong.es.usyd.edu.au/events/past/Conference
_Nov2008/AMRC%20fish
eries%20Brief%209%20%20Final%20(Engl).pdf
index
- Uganda: The Batwa issue declaration calling for their rights
to be recognized
The Batwa (often
described as “pygmies”) are widely regarded as the original forest-dwelling
inhabitants of the Equatorial forest in the Great Lakes Region
comprising Uganda, Burundi, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic
of Congo. In Uganda, they lived in the forest of the Mufumbira
Mountains in the South West. They were hunter-gatherers that relied
on the forests for their livelihood and found in the forests the
sustenance for their spiritual and social life.
In the 1930’s, the
Batwa’s lands were declared forest and game reserves by the British
colonial power, which implied the Batwa began to have restricted
access to their own land, though the forest continued to be economically
and culturally important to them.
In
1991, and without the Batwa’s participation, those forest reserves
became national parks along the colonial and neo-colonial construct
of “Fortress Conservation”: Mgahinga Gorilla National Park, Bwindi
Impenetrable National Park and Echuya Central Forest Reserve.
The circle around the Batwa was closed: they were banned from
their traditional forest activities and displaced from their lands,
receiving little or no compensation at all. At present, almost
half remain landless (squatting on others’ lands and working for
non-Batwa masters in bonded labour agreements) and almost all
live in absolute poverty. They have poorer levels of health care,
education and employment than their ethnic neighbours.
In
a recent Declaration (13 February 2009) submitted to the Ugandan
Government and signed by 41 Batwa community representatives of
five districts of South West Uganda, they state that since that
time they are “homeless, landless and one of the poorest and most
marginalised communities in Uganda”. In their declaration, they
add that “because we are destitute, we depend on casual labour
for survival and erect temporary shelter on land belonging to
other communities around us. We are denied an opportunity to live
a dignified life and contribute to national development like other
citizens of Uganda contrary to International Human Rights Standards
and the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda”. Some 6700 Batwa
live in Uganda.
As
one Batwa representative expressed at the recent meeting that
produced the declaration, “Why is it that animals are guarded
by guns and yet we the people are suffering? We have been voting
but are we citizens of this country?”
A
press release from the United Organisation for Batwa Development
in Uganda (UOBDU) regarding the Batwa’s declaration, describes
the sad and unfair destitution of an original people that used
to live since time immemorial in coexistence with the environment:
“The Batwa temporarily camp on other people’s land in Kisoro,
Kabale, Kanungu, Mbarara and Masaka. They offer daily casual labour
in exchange for food. Where this condition is breached, the consequence
is expulsion from the individual’s land. The Mutwa [Batwa] woman
is limited to receiving food for her labour and not even enough
food to feed her infant children. She is also compelled to divert
her older children from school to provide labour.”
The
Batwa have raised a basic demand of justice: “Conscious that all
human beings are equal and entitled to all rights and freedoms
without distinction of any kind all human beings deserve to be
treated with dignity and respect”. They remind the government
that it is obliged by Constitutional provisions “to institute
an effective machinery to deal with any hazard or situation resulting
in general displacement of people or serious disruption of their
livelihood” –which is the situation that they are confronting.
In
their declaration, the Batwa claim respect to their “fundamental
right to our ancestral lands” and that -pending the resolution
of their land claims- “the government should provide alternative
land” for their resettlement. At the same time, they demand that
“since the forest forms the basis of our cultural and spiritual
heritage, the government should allow us access the forest for
purposes of preserving our cultural values.”
As
the UOBDU press release states, “The declaration of the Batwa,
now submitted to the Ugandan Government, will spearhead their
strategy for their continuing struggle for their rights to be
recognised. We strongly recommend that the Government pay attention
to the plight of the Batwa people and integrate them into the
national development efforts of Uganda. The Batwa are deprived
of their access to their forests and most are landless. The Ugandan
Government has obligations under international law.” It is now
time for the government to act and repair a long standing injustice.
Article
based on UOBDU press release of February 23, 2009, at
http://www.forestpeoples.org/documents/africa/uganda_
batwa_declaration_press_rel_feb09_eng.pdf, disseminated by
Amarantha Pike, e-mail:
amarantha@forestpeoples.org, and Batwa Declaration at
http://www.forestpeoples.org/documents/africa/uganda_
batwa_declaration_feb09_eng.pdf
index
COMMUNITIES AND
TREE MONOCULTURES
- Brazil: On Women’s day, peasant women struggle against tree
plantations
On
International Women’s Day in Brazil, once again women lead the
struggle against monoculture tree plantations.
Starting
in 2006, when close on 2 thousand peasant women from Via Campesina
destroyed greenhouses and nearly 8 million eucalyptus saplings
belonging to the pulp mill company Aracruz Celulose (see WRM Bulletin
No. 104), 8 March has now become a day for mobilization and complaints
against monoculture tree plantations.
In
the State of Espirito Santo, some 1,300 women from Via Campesina
arrived in 14 buses at the port of Portocel (Barra do Riacho)
in the north of the State. The port is the property of Aracruz
Celulose (together with Japanese pulp producing company, Cenibra)
and is the only port in Brazil specializing in loading pulp, with
an annual loading capacity of 7.5 million tons of pulp.
The operation, which lasted half an hour, stopped for almost five
hours the activities of some 50 trucks ready to load pulp. The
peasant women also threw paint on bundles of pulp, spoiling approximately
two tons. (1)
The
operation was aimed at denouncing to society Aracruz Celulose’s
appropriation of land. This company is one of the main representatives
of agribusiness in the country. Close on 300,000 hectares of land
are occupied by eucalyptus plantations to produce pulp for export
and part of these thousands of hectares are lands belonging to
indigenous, Afro-descendent, fisher-people and riparian communities.
Aracruz Celulose also appropriates water: it consumes 248 thousand
cubic metres of water per day, equivalent to the consumption of
a town of 2.5 million inhabitants. To do this it has diverted
part of the Doce River, to the detriment of various local communities
(see WRM Bulletin No. 72).
Land
occupation by monoculture eucalyptus plantations has been done
at the expense of food sovereignty and to the detriment of peasant
production. In a booklet recently published by the Espirito Santo
Movement of Smallholders (Movimento dos Pequenos Agricultores),
diversified agriculture is compared to the eucalyptus plantations
promoted by these companies (“Um alerta sobre o fomento florestal”:
http://www.wrm.org.uy/paises/Brasil/Fomento_Florestal.pdf).
The booklet clearly shows that for peasant families, diversified
production guarantees healthy food and work for the whole family,
while the eucalyptus plantations only cause damage. In spite of
this it is the forestry companies that continue to receive the
most State support: as an example, the Votorantim group recently
received one million dollars to purchase Aracruz shares and save
it from possible bankruptcy.
Another
of the measures for opposing the expansion of tree plantations
took place in the State of Maranhão where 10 or more municipalities
have been affected by monoculture eucalyptus plantations. At a
landholding of the company Vale do Rio Doce in Açailândia, women
from Via Campesina set fire to several bundles of eucalyptus logs.
In this area the eucalyptus planted supplies an industrial charcoal
factory that is responsible for considerable air pollution, affecting
the lives of over 1,800 inhabitants in the neighbouring California
Settlement. The company has another 200,000 hectares to
be allocated to eucalyptus plantations for supplying the Suzano
Papel e Celulose mill to be installed in the region.
The action was taken demanding public policies guaranteeing food
and energy sovereignty for the Brazilian people, instead of funding
major projects involving international capital that destroy natural
resources and do not generate jobs. (2)
Furthermore, in the State of Rio Grande do Sul, some 700 peasant
women occupied the Ana Paula ranch,
belonging to the Votorantim Celulose y Papel (VCP) company, in
Candiota. The occupation started by cutting down eucalyptus
trees at the establishment and was part of the women of Via Campesina’s
National Day for Struggle, aimed at denouncing the consequences
of eucalyptus monoculture plantations in the region: lack of water
for human consumption and production, desertification and soil
acidity, loss of biodiversity with serious consequences on grassland
ecosystems. Many neighbours of VCP are already feeling the impacts
of the monoculture plantations, such as the drying up of their
wells and changes in the fauna, leading to the invasion of animals
damaging their crops. (3) However, public money that comes out
of the population’s pockets as taxation is still allocated to
agribusiness banks and companies that degrade the environment
and evict peasants from rural areas and that do not generate employment.
The occupation of the Ana Paula ranch was subsequently violently
repressed by the Military Brigade.
Other
actions carried out by women in Pernambuco, Paraná, São Paulo
and Brasilia, denounced the damage caused by major irrigation
projects, extensive cattle raising for export at the expense of
forests and biodiversity, monoculture plantations of sugar cane,
soy beans, eucalyptus, pine; in other words, the expansion of
agribusiness. (4)
Brazil
has 130,000 landless families organized in camps that are waiting
for land rights and over 4 million landless families. “The application
of the agrarian reform and the consolidation of the new agricultural
model depend on defeating the present model,” warns Itelvina Masioli
from Vía Campesina. It is a model that appropriates and dominates
water, land, energy sources, minerals, seeds and the whole of
biodiversity. The allocation of the Government’s rural credit
to agribusiness during this season (2008/09) amounted to some
30 billion dollars, while for family enterprises only some 5.8
billion dollars were allocated.
The
Director General of FAO, Jacques Diouf himself, supported the
proposals made by Via Campesina. On the second day of mobilizations,
Diouf received a peasant delegation in Brasilia and listened to
their report on action taken. He declared that their action is
“just and necessary.” (5)
Peasant,
riparian, extractivist, indigenous, Afro-descendent and landless
women want to denounce with their political action the extreme
gravity of the situation of rural workers in Brazil. Faced
by the repression and criminalization of social struggles, they
reaffirm their right to fight in defence of agro-ecology, biodiversity,
cooperative peasant farming, the production of healthy food, agrarian
reform, land, water, seeds, energy, as assets of nature at the
service of human beings. They announce that “we break the silence
to salvage our culture and our peasant knowledge, to salvage our
Brazil. And for this purpose we call on all the Brazilian
people to join the struggle, to unite and build a new development
project – benefiting the Brazilian people.” (6)
(1)
“Via Campesina occupies Aracruz Celulose’s port”, Gazeta On Line,
http://gazetaonline.globo.com/_conteudo/2009/03/64300-via+campesina+ocupa+porto+da+aracruz+celulose.html;
“Mulheres da Via Campesina ocupam porto da Aracruz no ES”, MST,
http://www.mst.org.br/mst/pagina.php?cd=6377
(2)
"Mulheres queimam toras de eucaliptos da Vale no Maranhão”,
MST,
http://www.mst.org.br/mst/pagina.php?cd=6393
(3)
“Trabalhadoras ocupam área da Votorantim no RS”, MST,
http://www.mst.org.br/mst/pagina.php?cd=6381
(4)
Mulheres lutam contra agronegócio em quatro regiões, MST,
http://www.mst.org.br/mst/pagina.php?cd=6395
(5)
“Diretor-Geral da FAO elogia luta das mulheres camponesas”,
MST,
http://www.mst.org.br/mst/pagina.php?cd=6425
(6)
“Peasant Women In The Struggle Against Agro-Business, For The
Agrarian Reform And Food Sovereignty”,
http://www.mst.org.br/mst/pagina.php?cd=6398
index
- China: Facing two evils -deforestation and monoculture tree
plantations
The
entrance of China into the global capitalist market with the ensuing
accelerated expansion of its economy has been marked by a growing
hunger for timber.
The
path to industrialization first swallowed the country’s forests.
Rampant logging led to the irretrievable loss of China’s natural
wealth: accelerated desertification, decline of biodiversity and
loss of forests up to the point that there is almost no old-growth
left in China. The case of Yichun serves to illustrate the issue.
The Guardian’s correspondent Jonathan Watts, reports (1) that
in “Yichun, a north-eastern city in Heilongjiang province close
to the frozen river border with Siberia, the forests were once
so dense that the area was known as the Great Northern Wilderness.
But more than fifty years of unsustainable logging have taken
their toll. Yichun was classified last year (2008) as one of China's
12 ‘resource-depleted cities.’ ‘We are in a situation where we
have no wood to cut. None of the forests are mature enough,’ Dong
Zhiyong, former vice-minister in the forestry administration said.”
With
the soil exposed to erosion fierce sandstorms have lashed the
country while deforestation –especially in the
upper reaches of river systems-- has contributed
to devastating floods that caused thousands of deaths
and millions of displaced people.
In
1998, a sweeping logging ban was established. However,
wood consumption still increased, now at the
expense of the forests of neighbouring countries (e.g. Burma,
Cambodia, Russia) as well as of far away countries such as those
in Western Africa, among other.
The
need for papermaking resources added to wood demand and as result
China launched in 2000 a Fast-growing and High-yielding Timber
Plantations Program. The program –part of a wider set of six key
programs- was to be established in 18 eastern and southwestern
provinces and by 2012 the government aims to have planted an area
of 44 million hectares (see WRM Bulletin Nº 85). This has implied
land tenure reforms shifting from state-run or collectively owned
land to land privatization in a country where farmer population
is 1 billion out of a population of 1.5 billion.
Tax reductions and
leeway management of fast growing, high-yield tree plantations
have been established in an attempt to attract private investment.
According to a Canadian report (2) “reforms are now moving from
the recognition of individual assets and the encouragement of
private companies to large-scale natural resource management”.
A
number of pulp and paper firms have taken advantage of the opportunity
and arrived to China to invest in planting trees and producing
paper. Stora Enso, with business such as an integrated pulp and
paper project in the Guangxi Zhuang autonomous region, where the
company leases 91,000 hectares of land for eucalyptus plantations
plans to reach 160,000 hectares by 2010 to supply Stora Enso's
pulp and paper project in Beihai (3). The notorious Asia Pulp
and Paper has stakes in over 20 pulp and paper enterprises, as
well as more than 20 tree plantation sites in China. (4) The Finnish
UPM-Kymmene is also looking into investing further in the
country in planting fast-growing trees. (5)
Soon
an alert sounded: the province of Guangdong experienced a worsening
drought coincidentally with the establishment of some 700,000
hectares planted with eucalyptus trees. Local authorities as well
as members of the Chinese Academia exposed the link between the
increasing number of eucalyptus tree plantations and the worsening
drought in Guangdong (see WRM Bulletin Nº 106).
The
weakness of the monoculture model –that lacks the natural protection
provided by biodiversity- expressed itself in the case of poplar
tree plantations, which became prone to insect attacks causing
severe damage to leaves and trunks.
To amend the mess,
a worse problem was introduced: genetically modified (GM) trees.
Two genetically modified poplar lines were developed with support
from Germany, FAO, and UNDP: Populus nigra and Populus hybrid
named Poplar-12 and Poplar-741, which produce a Bt toxin in their
leaves that kills leaf-eating insects.(6)
In 2002, both varieties
were released for commercial use. Poplar is a fast-growing
tree and the plans involved the establishment of commercial plantations
with a ten-year rotation period covering an area of approximately
17 million hectares by the year 2012. (7)
China is the first
country to approve the commercial release of GM trees.(7) According
to Huoran Wang of the Chinese Academy of Forestry, "The accurate
area of GM plantations cannot be assessed because of the ease
of propagation and marketing of GM trees and the difficulty of
morphologically distinguishing GM from non-GM trees." He
adds that "a lot of materials are moved from one nursery
to another and it is difficult to trace them." (8)
In spite of official
assertions that GM poplars were female varieties with altered
fertility –which allegedly would prevent cross-breeding– the Nanjing
Institute of Environmental Science has already found genes from
the GE poplars appearing in natural varieties. The threat of GM
pollution has now become a tragic reality.
The case of China
exemplifies the intrinsic problems of large-scale monoculture
tree plantations, as well as those stemming from trying to address
them through genetic manipulation. Reforestation is of course
necessary in a country with few forests left, but much will depend
on how it is understood. Reforestation can either mean larger
monocultures of fast-growing tree species for wood production
–including GM trees- or biodiverse plantations adapted to local
environments and aimed at forest restoration. Planting billions
of trees –as currently carried out in China- can be very good
or very bad, depending on how it is implemented. We hope that
the enormous effort carried out every year by the Chinese people
and government will have the positive result of helping to bring
back the country’s native forests.
(1)
“China's loggers down chainsaws in attempt to regrow forests”,
Jonathan Watts, guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 11 March 2009,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/11/china-forests-deforestation
(2)
“The Development of China’s Forestry Sector and Its Implications
for Canada”, Jason (Guangyu) Wang, CIC Junior Fellow Preliminary
Paper, July 2008,
http://www.canadianinternationalcouncil.org/download/
resourcece/archives/foreignpol/cic_wang_e
(3)
“Stora Enso: Sustainable paper production”, China Daily, 2008,
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2008-10/24/content_7136326.htm
(4) “Special supplement:
APP China pushes green initiative in making white paper”, Fu Yu,
China Daily, 2008,
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2008-04/12/content_6611376.htm
(5)
“Nation's Tree-planting Strategy to Meet Paper Sector's Needs”,
China Daily,
http://www.china.org.cn/english/BAT/87695.htm
(6)
Cheng Wenjing, TWN (2008), GE trees in China, presented at the
International Biosafety Forum-Workshop 3, organized by Nanjing
Institute of Environmental Science, GTZ/BMZ, Central University
for Nationality College of Life and Environmental Science and
TWN, Beijing, September 25-26, 2008,
http://www.wrm.org.uy/countries/China/GE_Trees_in_China.pdf
(7)
"Seeing once is better than studying a thousand times",
GMO Safety,
http://www.gmo-safety.eu/en/wood/poplar/325.docu.html
(8)
“The New Chainsaw”, Katie Shafley, The Dominion,
http://www.dominionpaper.ca/environment/2006/05/20/the_new_ch.html
index
- Mozambique: Pine plantation project brings misfortune to 31
families in the North
Thirty-one
families from the districts of Lichinga and Sanga in northern
Mozambique have not been able to harvest any crops this 2008/2009
season due to their obligatory withdrawal from their crop areas
(machambas) to other new areas because of a “reforestation”
megaproject. The inhabitants are blaming the reforestation projects
for the devastation of their machambas.
Less
than 10 years ago, Niassa was identified by the Government of
Mozambique and bilateral Swedish Aid as one of the regions in
the world with the greatest potential for timber production. Over
2.4 million hectares were identified for possible tree plantations.
In
order to encourage investment in the forestry sector, the Malonda
Foundation was set up in 2006 to establish partnerships with national
and foreign investors. To ensure and attract investment, the Foundation
needed to obtain the concession of vast tracts of land. In Mozambique,
the State owns all the land and can only allocate rights over
community lands through a process of community consultation and
negotiation. In practice, these consultations and negotiations
were not sufficiently wide or comprehensive.
A
recent report from the Swedish Bilateral Aid Helpdesk (October
2008) on the consultations and negotiations over community lands
confirmed what had been verified in the field: “a tendency to
work only with traditional leaders...resulting in a feeling of
marginalization in the population.”
Very
often the traditional kinglets, ignoring the law regulating land
use and pursuing financial interests, sign documents for the forestry
area investors, placing at risk the peasants’ right to use the
land. The companies maintain contact with the kinglets of the
respective areas haphazardly. The inhabitants only notice the
existence of a particular project when it is already being implemented.
In
the case of the Mussa-Chimbunila region in the District of Lichinga,
land concession has been problematic. Up to 25% of the concession
granted to the Foundation overlaps with productive community lands.
Idrissa
Assane, president of the Mussa Farmers Association said she saw
her machamba being measured without any prior information. “In
an attempt to obtain some explanation I addressed the local structures,
specifically the kinglet and later the administrative office and
the reply was that I had to wait. To my horror I see that there
is a project to plant trees on my land and here I am still waiting,”
Assane lamented in 2008.
The
31 peasant families in the Assane region had areas where they
grew much food sustaining their families all the year round. In
the machambas abandoned because of the pine plantations they left
many fruit trees behind such as banana, mango, pear, papaya, pineapple,
peach, avocado and loquat trees and many root crops.
Following
many complaints made throughout 2008, the Foundation started to
respond to the question of how to find new areas for the affected
families’ crops. The Foundation technicians opened up new areas,
provided seeds and fertilizer but this was all done too late.
According to UNAC (the National Peasant Union) corn crops will
be very poor. However the Maloda Foundation promised that there
would be food security in the districts where it works.
In
the village of Mussa, District of Lichinga, Baptista Iussufo Imede
regretted that he had been obliged to leave his machamba with
a large crop and allocated another area where the late sowing
and inappropriate fertilizer for corn had resulted in failure.
Baptista
and other families affected by the process have neither a cob
of corn nor any other crops, stated Iussufo.
The
Foundation’s Bulletin “Noticias de las Comunidades” (News from
the communities) contains information stating that the peasants
are satisfied with their new machambas. This and other news in
the Bulletin are neither true nor the community’s real situation,
according to information given by Salimo Ndala from the village
of Mussa. According to him he was sad about the obligatory withdrawal,
the lateness of tilling, sowing and the fertilizer – which, contrary
to the statement of the Foundation’s bulletin, are not satisfactory.
A photo of Ndala appears in the bulletin.
According
to some of the community voices contacted by the National Peasant
Union Bulletin, “in Mozambique laws only defend the rich and not
the poor;”
This position is upheld
by Baptista Iussufo Imede from the village of Mussa, District
of Lichinga:
“In
Niassa, all the reforestation projects enter with policies that
do not favour the communities in terms of peasant development.
They do not comply with the land law, with its clauses that say
that community lands require consultation with the communities,
pasture areas, conservation areas and consuetudinary rights.”
Ndala
told the UNAC Bulletin that increasingly the peasants are becoming
more vulnerable because some of the kinglets work for personal
interests.
Rematuo
Issa regrets that very often it is not the peasant women who take
decisions: everything ends up with the men and the women only
comply.
“Under
these circumstances, it is the woman who most suffers, together
with the children. Where is the struggle against poverty that
the Government is always talking about? Is it that peasants will
come out of poverty without land? Is this the Green Revolution?”
asks Rematuo.
By
Alifa Aide, Niassa, Lichinga, Mozambique. Sent by Janet Gunter,
CAFOD, e-mail: jgunter@cafod.org.uk
index
- 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
index
- Brazil: Occupation of Veracel’s tree plantations calls upon
land reform
April
17 has been declared by La Via Campesina the “International Day
of Peasant’s Struggles” to commemorate the slaughter by the Brazilian
police in 1996 of 19 peasants of the “landless” movement while
they mobilized to get access to some land.
The
land issue has becoming a major one in Brasil and the Movement
of Landless Rural Workers MST have been very active.
On
last April 8, 1,500 landless families of the MST occupied the
landholding Putumuju, of the pulp and paper company Veracel Celulose
(a joint venture of the Swedish-Finnish pulp giant Stora Enso
and Brazilian-based Aracruz Celulose), in Eunápolis, south of
the state of Bahia. They cut down around 2 hectares of eucalyptus
trees to make way for maize and bean planting.
The
action claimed the illegality of Veracel’s tree plantations in
the municipality. The company occupies near 205,000 hectares of
which some 96,000 are covered by eucalyptus plantations at the
expense of the Atlantic Forest. Veracel’s deforestation with tractors
and bulldozers during its first year of operation led on 17 June
2008, to a historic resolution of a federal court which ordered
Veracel to replant those plantations with native trees and pay
a fine of US$ 12,5 million (see WRM Bulletin Nº 132).
Furthermore,
over 20,000 hectares of those plantations are established on lands
belonging to the Bahia state government that should be destined
to land reform for small-scale agriculture (“terras devolutas”)
as the Federal Constitution determines.
The
action aimed at raising awareness amid the Brazilian society about
the urgency of setting in motion the standing Agrarian Land Reform
as well as to denounce that Veracel’s power has led to the disappearance
of several agricultural subsistence crops in Eunápolis and land
concentration at the expense of peasants. The MST wants to discuss
the tree monoculture production in the state and the regularization
of the 'terras devolutas'. "Over the past two years no lands
have been taken by the government for land reform" and, according
to Marcio Matos from the state direction of the MST, "while
one company has here more than 20,000 hectares of lands that should
be used to end with poverty and hunger in the region".
The
office of the Secretary of Agriculture of the State of Bahia,
in the state capital Salvador, was also occupied on April 14,
with the aim of putting pressure on the state government to comply
with the promises made in 2007, including field inspection of
potential land reform areas.
La Via
Campesina calls upon everyone to unite on this April 17 for peasant's
rights (rights to land, right to seeds, right to water...) organising
a demonstration, a public debate, a movie screening, a local food
expo, a fiesta, a direct action, a singing competition, etc. (To
join the action, subscribe to the distribution list for April
17 by sending a message without text to:
http://viacampesina.net/mailman/listinfo/via.17april_viacampesina.net)
index
WRM MEETING
DECLARATION
- Declaration of Heredia on Climate, Forests and Plantations
Between
24 and 28 March 2009, in Heredia, Costa Rica, the World Rainforest
Movement (WRM) brought together civil society organisations from
around the world to address the subject of climate, forests and
plantations and their interrelations with local communities.
Participants
from 21 countries joined together for reflection, discussion and
the exchange of experiences and information. They concurred that
“climate change is the inevitable consequence of a social, political
and economic system that has turned nature and people into commodities,”
that monoculture plantations “displace communities, destroy forests,
pollute the planet and generate further climate change,” and that
“the defense of the climate, forests and other ecosystems by the
people is the only possible alternative for the future we are
building.”
The
conclusions, commitments and proposals arising from the meeting,
with a special emphasis on the need to “create our own agenda,
focused on the needs and struggles of our peoples, to generate
and contribute to a wide social movement with the objective of
transforming the system from the bottom up,” were summarised in
the Declaration of Heredia, which we present here:
Declaration of
Heredia on Climate, Forests and Plantations
Heredia, 28 March
2009
We,
organisations of civil society from every continent, have met
in Costa Rica between 24 and 28 March to share experiences, visit
peasant communities, think and present proposals on the question
of climate, forests, and plantations.
During
the first part of our meeting we visited several peasant communities
in the northern part of the country and were able to see the impact
of pineapple monoculture on local communities, on their territories,
sources of water, health, local ecosystems. We were able
to see how these peasant communities continue to protect and regenerate
their forests against all the attacks they suffer.
We
were able to see clearly how the imposition of an agro-export
model that is repeated in different shapes and with different
crops all around the planet contributes to the current climate
disaster. This model of commodity exports, with its system of
monocultures, intense use of fossil-fuel based agro-chemicals
and transport of products over thousands of miles for the consumption
of the rich North, is one of the main causes of the current climate
crisis.
Costa
Rica sells itself to the world as a green country that defends
its forests and biodiversity, but we have seen that this image
does not reflect the reality of the environment or people of Costa
Rica.
After
two days of reflecting about the causes that have led our societies
to this situation, and about the proposals put forward from official
circles, we want to share our conclusions, commitments and proposals
to address climate change.
Our
first conclusion is that climate change is the inevitable consequence
of a social, political and economic system that has turned nature
and people into commodities. Even though climate change is one
of the most serious threats that we face for the future, it is
also part of a series of crises that have been happening in the
last few years.
Secondly,
we have come to the conclusion that none of the solutions proposed
by governments and the United Nations really deal with the causes
of climate change.
We
have concluded that carbon trading, REDD mechanisms, payment for
environmental services, offsets and all market-based mitigation
mechanisms are instruments which not only do not fulfil their
purported objective but also advance the commodification of life
and therefore the destruction of our planet and aggravation of
climate change. All of these proposals become “moving targets”
which, by continuously changing, try to distract us from the real
problems.
The
global market, its huge corporations have co-opted UN climate
negotiations and have taken them hostage, turning them into a
business space which in no way responds to the real needs and
urgent measures that need to be taken.
The
World Bank, which has been responsible for financing the destruction
of the planet, is now taking a leading role in climate negotiations,
promoting failed market models that make a mockery of attempts
to tackle the climate crisis.
Neither
do the technologies that are being developed as a response – such
as agrofuels, transgenic plants, the use of biochar, and others
that may arise – constitute a real response to climate change.
Behind all of these false solutions we find the corporations,
with the complicity of the governments, who have become simple
facilitators of the corporations’ business activities. At the
same time, it is also the governments who are promoting repression
and criminalisation of individuals and organisations who resist
the imposition of plantations, monocultures and all of these false
solutions.
For
this reason, we commit to create our own agenda, focused on the
needs and struggles of our peoples, to generate and contribute
to a wide social movement with the objective of transforming the
system from the bottom up.
Within
this framework, the defense of the climate, forests and other
ecosystems by the people is the only possible alternative for
the future we are building. Women are playing a leading role on
the path to changing the relationship between people and with
nature that privileges co-operation over domination and control.
We
reject plantations and monocultures because they displace communities,
destroy forests, pollute the planet and generate further climate
change. This rejection is one of the main points on our agenda
for the future. We underline the fact that plantations are not
forests.
It
is on this basis that we propose:
(1)
The defense of land and territories
against any type of land concentration in the hands of the few.
We propose an integral agrarian reform, starting out from the
integration of women and men in solidarity with their land and
the protection of water and the biodiversity which sustains us.
We completely oppose market-based agrarian reforms promoted by
the World Bank, whose only objective is to displace communities
in order to occupy their territories. Our proposal is to establish
a relationship to the land in a respectful manner without aggression.
We understand that defending the territory is defending our culture
and our way of relating among ourselves and with the earth.
(2)
Food sovereignty. We understand
food sovereignty as the right of people to decide on everything
that relates to the production of food and agriculture. Food sovereignty
starts with the defence of native seeds and with the link to nature.
In order to be sovereign, we need to produce locally the greater
part of food for our own consumption in harmony with nature, and
in this way we can produce food for all in a diversified way in
order to avoid monocultures while cooling the planet and fighting
climate change. This is the way to achieve healthy and harmonious
people and ecosystems.
(3)
Opposing market-based climate
mechanisms. We will resist and denounce as false carbon trading,
REDD, as well as similar market-based schemes that may arise in
future. We commit to explaining in every possible arena why these
will never provide a response to the climate crisis.
We
will implement these objectives by carrying out activities in
which we will coordinate with and support each other:
-
Education
and awareness-raising through the production of educational
and audio-visual materials and any other tool that allows
us to extend the number of people conscious of the problems;
-
Carrying out
case studies together with affected communities in order to
document the impacts of climate change and its false solutions
and accompany them in their struggles against them;
-
Alliance building
with all the social movements that question this economic
system, including indigenous peoples, womens´ organisations,
human rights organisations and trade unions;
-
Supporting movements
of people affected by climate change, to help their voices
be heard and to reinforce their strategies for survival;
-
Working at local,
national and international level in coordination and solidarity.
We
return to our countries in solidarity with the people of Costa
Rica in their struggles against free trade agreements, in defence
of biodiversity, water, modes of production in harmony with nature
and a world of justice and solidarity.
Participants
at the WRM meeting
Alejandra Porras (COECOCEIBA) - Costa Rica
Almuth Ernsting (Biofuel Watch) - United Kingdom
Ana Filippini (WRM) - Uruguay
Carlos Salvatierra (Savia) - Guatemala
Carlos Vicente (GRAIN) - Argentina
Chris Lang (REDD Monitor) - Germany
Eduardo Aguilar (COECOCEIBA) - Costa Rica
Elizabeth Bravo (Accion Ecologica) - Ecuador
Elvin Castellón (FEDICAMP)- Nicaragua
Francesco Martone (FPP)- Italy
Ginting Longgena (FoEI) - Indonesia
Grace Garcia (COECOCEIBA) - Costa Rica
Gustavo Castro (Otros Mundos / Amigos de la Tierra) - Mexico
Ines Soares Rodrigues (Via Campesina) - Brazil
Isaac Rojas (COECOCEIBA) - Costa Rica
Javier Baltodano (Friends of the Earth International) - Costa
Rica
Juan Almendares (Madre Tierra) - Honduras
Juan Figuerola (COECOCEIBA)- Costa Rica
Jutta Kill (FERN) - Germany
Lambert Okrah (Institute for Cultural Affaire) - Ghana
Mariana Porras (COECOCEIBA) - Costa Rica
Miguel Marín (FEDICAMP) - Nicaragua
Nicola Bullard (Focus on the Global South) - Phillipines
Oscar Reyes (Transnational Institute) - The Netherlands
Ricardo Carrere (WRM) - Uuguay
Ricardo Navarro (CESTA) - El Salvador
Sarah Sexton (The Corner House) - United Kingdom
Winnie Overbeek (Alert against Green Desert Network) - Brazil
Witoon Permpongsacharoen (FER) - Thailand
index
MORE
ON PLANTATIONS
-
Wilful ignorance: FAO and industrial tree plantations
The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation has
long worked on behalf of the plantation industry. One of FAO's
strategies to support the spread of monocultures is to pretend
that industrial tree plantations are forests.
In December 2008, the Forest Products Journal
published a report "Wood from planted forests: A global outlook
2005-2030", written by Jim Carle and Peter Holmgren, two
of FAO's forestry experts. The report repeats the myth that plantations
are forests, as if through repetition the myth will miraculously
become truth.
Carle and Holmgren appear to be so sure of
their facts that they don't bother reading anything that might
contradict them. The literature cited in their report includes
none of the large number of reports, articles or videos documenting
the social and environmental impact of industrial tree plantations.
Instead, they cherry pick their evidence from industry-friendly
sources.
"Planted forests have an important role,"
Carle and Holmgren write, "in providing economic and social
benefits in eradicating poverty in developing countries and in
industrialized countries where marginalized groups and indigenous
peoples have previously been excluded from the benefits of development
processes." Their source for this statement is a book published
by the International Institute for Environment and Development
(IIED) in 2005.
A year previously, IIED produced a report about
industrial tree plantations in South Africa, which came to a very
different conclusion: "jobs provided by forestry contracting
are not able to lift the vast majority of forestry workers, mainly
women, out of chronic poverty, or prevent them from falling further
into poverty." Carle and Holmgren are aware of this report,
or at least they should be. I sent it to them in June 2008 asking
for a comment. As they did not reply, I sent it again in September
2008. But Carle and Holmgren have a simple strategy for dealing
with anything that contradicts their predetermined conclusions:
Ignore it.
One
of the sources cited in their report is a 2003 report, "Fast-
Wood Forestry: Myths and Realities", published by the Center
for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). This report notes
that while it is often claimed that industrial tree plantations
take pressure of natural forests, "This claim is highly tendentious."
CIFOR's report explains that "It may be true for a small
number of countries - New Zealand and Sri Lanka are often cited
- but there is little evidence to suggest that fast-wood plantations
have taken pressure off natural forests elsewhere."
If he has read this, Carle has not understood
it. "Planted forests can take, to some degree, pressure off
indigenous forests," he says on a video on FAO's website.
"Certainly there are many examples of countries who have
had a targeted planted forests development programme which now
something like 90 to 100 per cent of their production of industrial
round wood is now from the planted forests. And they've set aside
their indigenous forests primarily for conservation, protected
area management, national parks, reserves, recreational use."
Carle does not say which countries he is talking
about. Neither does he explain that the current expansion of industrial
tree plantations is in the global South, to meet the over-consumption
of the North. He does not describe the massive destruction of
forests in Indonesia to feed pulp and paper mills. In recent years,
Brazil's industrial tree plantations have expanded faster than
in most countries. Yet Brazil also has one of the highest rates
of deforestation in the world. That does not mean that plantations
are the cause of deforestation, rather that plantations have not
relieved pressure on natural forests. When forests are cleared
to make way for agricultural crops, as is the case in Brazil,
it is difficult to see how tree plantations could possibly reduce
deforestation. Surely, someone working for an organisation whose
name includes the words "Food" and "Agriculture"
should be able to grasp this?
In
September 2008, World Rainforest Movement's Raquel Nuñez met FAO
officials Jim Carle, Peter Holmgren and José Antonio Prado and
handed them a statement titled "Monoculture tree plantations
are not forests". The statement, signed by more than 100
forestry professionals and students from 29 countries, notes some
of the impacts that plantations have on local communities, including
loss of biodiversity, changes in the water cycle, decreased food
production, soil degradation, loss of indigenous and traditional
cultures, conflicts with forestry companies, decreased employment,
expulsion of rural populations and destruction of the natural
landscape. Carle and Holmgren are nothing if not consistent. They
ignored the statement.
On its website, FAO illustrates its press release
about the "Wood from planted forests" report with a
photograph of Veracel's monoculture eucalyptus plantations in
Brazil. The caption reads: "Industrial roundwood production
from planted forests, Brazil". We are left in no doubt that
the "planted forests" that the FAO is talking about
are in fact industrial tree plantations. But the FAO is silent
on the impacts of Veracel's plantations.
A
recent publication by the Brazilian NGO CEPEDES documents the
impact of Veracel's plantations on water, the environment, workers
and rural communities. CEPEDES quotes a rural worker: "I
feel attacked by having to live every day in front of that 'sea
of eucalyptus'. Every day, we see that our streams, ponds and
springs are drying. . . . And now what is left is that we can
only miss the beauty of the place, the smell, colour and the flock
of birds."
Rather than continuing to ignore the evidence,
FAO should listen to the people living with the impacts of plantations.
FAO's wilful ignorance must stop.
By
Chris Lang,
http://chrislang.org
index
- FSC: Increasingly alone in the path of tree plantation certification
Up
to last year, the Forest Stewardship Council had certified 8.6
million hectares of industrial tree plantations despite ample
evidence regarding the social and environmental unsustainability
of large scale monoculture tree plantations.
Aware
that the FSC-seal might serve mostly for corporate greenwashing,
one by one NGOs have been withdrawing from the international certification
organization, which has increasingly lost credibility regarding
this issue.
Now
it has been the German environmental organization Robin Wood which
left FSC International after having been a member for over twelve
years. The reason for this move, as they explain it, “is above
all, that industrial monocultures like eucalyptus plantations
also receive the FSC-seal.” “ROBIN WOOD doesn’t feel it is justifiable
that huge eucalyptus and pine cultures in countries of the global
south like Brazil, South Africa or Uruguay should carry the FSC-seal.
The expansion of these plantations often displaces the local population
from its traditional living spaces, which in turn leads to significant
social conflicts. Moreover, these monocultures are cultivated
with agrochemicals and chemical fertilizer. Therefore they are
from the point of view of ROBIN WOOD neither ecologically compatible
nor socially just”, states a press release of the organization.
“We
no longer want to bear the joint responsibility for the fact that
industrial monocultures receive a ‘green fig leaf’ by the FSC”,
explains Peter Gerhardt, responsible for tropical forests with
ROBIN WOOD.
Source:
“ROBIN WOOD leaves FSC-International”, ROBIN WOOD
Press
Release, Hamburg, 16 March 2009. For further information:
Peter
Gerhardt, tropical forests,
tropenwald@robinwood.de, Rudolf Fenner, wald@robinwood.de
index
- New
WRM Information tools
WRM
has produced four new briefings intended to serve as tools for
action. The briefing
“Ethanol from cellulose: A technology that could spell disaster”
refers to the emerging technology that intends to convert the
cellulose contained in plants into different types of fuels among
which liquid ethanol, that could be used in transport as an alternative
to gasoline. The research looks at the actors involved including
the pulp and paper industry as well as the main threats: more
and intensified deforestation, further expansion of monoculture
tree plantations, genetically engineered trees, more power to
large corporations leading to larger scale and concentration.
Eucalyptus,
oil palm, rubber and jatropha monoculture plantations are expanding
onto local communities’ lands and forests in the Mekong region’s
countries –Burma, Cambodia, China, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam.
“Regional perspectives on plantations: An overview on the Mekong
Basin” depicts the severe social and environmental impacts
of those plantations in a place whose people have seen rivers
and forests as places to hunt, fish and gather and the land produces
rice, a variety of crops and provides a home to local peoples.
Now, eager investors are rushing into the area to exploit their
land to make their own wealth to take back home. However, local
peoples’ resistance makes its way despite difficult political
scenarios.
Timber
plantations in southern Africa are concentrated in South Africa
and Swaziland and also expanding in Mozambique.
“Regional perspectives on plantations: An overview on Southern
Africa” refers to the monoculture tree plantation industry
in the region, dominated by two large South African pulp and paper
companies -Mondi and Sappi- and provides a country by country
overview of opposition to tree plantations.
Social
and environmental impacts of oil palm and rubber plantations in
tropical Africa are very similar in many respects including that
both take over large areas of land which have hitherto been in
the hands of indigenous or peasant populations and have provided
for their livelihoods.
“Regional perspectives on plantations: An overview on Western
and Central Africa” looks into something that differentiates
both plantations: while rubber is clearly an alien species brought
in by the Colonial powers, oil palm is a native species in many
West African countries and part of the culture of local communities.
This makes it difficult for local people to understand why this
species –when planted on an industrial scale- can result in negative
impacts. However, there are many forms of “anonymous”, spontaneous
and individual forms of resistance carried out by people living
in the vicinity of these plantations.
index
