OUR
VIEWPOINT
-
Field trial of genetically modified trees: Belgian government’s
contribution to International Day for Biological Diversity
On May 6th, Minister of Science and Innovation of Flanders (Belgium)
Patricia Ceyssens planted a tree. Nothing strange in that of course.
What was unusual about this type of “green” ceremony what that
this was no common tree. It was in fact the first genetically
modified poplar to be planted in an open field trial by the Flanders
Institute for Biotechnology (VIB), to be followed by the planting
of 119 more GM poplars over the next few days in the same site.
The presence of the minister came as no surprise, given that VIB
is funded by the Flemish government, but her active participation
in this particular tree planting activity can also be seen as
a political declaration against government officials who opposed
this field trial, against organizations such as Nature & Progrès
Belgique and Greenpeace Belgium and also against the majority
of the general public in Belgium that had expressed negative views
about it (one of the reasons provided for the initial refusal
to the trial by two federal ministers was that “the public consultation
is largely negative”).
Why did VIB receive such type of political support? What is the
importance of this field trial? What is this research aimed at?
To respond to those questions it is first necessary to explain
that these poplars have been genetically manipulated so that its
wood will have 20% less lignin and 17% more cellulose. Taking
into account that lignin is the material that binds the cellulose
fibers together and provides strength to the trees, such modification
does not seem to make any sense from a biological perspective.
However, it does make a lot of sense from a corporate-profit perspective.
And this is what this trial is all about: future profits. Apart
from the biotech industry itself –of which VIB is part- this trial
is aimed at benefiting two main actors: the pulp and paper industry
and the energy industry.
Regarding the first actor, wood with higher levels of cellulose
and lower levels of lignin will result in cheaper raw material,
because the same amount of wood will contain 17% more cellulose,
which is the part of the wood used in pulp production. At the
same time, 20% less lignin will mean a cheaper bleaching process,
given that lignin causes the yellowing of paper and any lignin
remaining has to be bleached. Less lignin therefore means lower
bleaching costs.
The second actor –the energy industry- appears to be even more
favoured by this research. It was not by chance that VIB received
1.6 million dollars from the American Global Climate and Energy
Project, managed by Stanford University, for further research.
The main aim of these trees is to serve as raw material for cellulosic
ethanol, which is produced from the cellulose contained in the
wood. Here again, what matters is the cellulose content –more
cellulose, cheaper ethanol. According to the Belgian media, these
trees will produce 50% more ethanol than normal poplars.
VIB and the Belgian Biosafety Council will of course promise that
this trial will be contained and that no pollen will contaminate
nearby native poplars. And this will probably be true. However,
it needs to be stressed that this trial is not a scientific academic
exercise but a first step towards the obvious aim: the commercial
planting –in Belgium and elsewhere- of GM poplars for large-scale
production of cellulosic ethanol and pulp for paper. And that
would be an environmental disaster.
Poplar is a common species throughout the world and particularly
in Europe, where many people grow them for commercial purposes.
Poplars have the peculiarity of hybridizing quite easily. This
means that the pollen from one species can fertilize the flowers
of a different species, resulting in hybrid trees sharing qualities
from both species. This is a very well known fact, and foresters
have used it to produce many hybrids by crossing different species
and even crossing European with American poplars. If GM poplars
were to be established in commercial plantations, pollen contamination
by GM poplars would become inevitable. The wood of the descendants
of the contaminated poplars would contain much less lignin than
the original natural species and would thus be easily destroyed
by storms and be prone to pest attacks precisely because of their
low lignin level. As a result, entire forest ecosystems would
suffer the impacts.
To make matters worse, enormous areas of food producing lands
would be taken over –in North and South- by large-scale GM poplar
plantations to feed either the cellulosic ethanol business or
the pulp and paper business or both.
In sum, Minister Ceyssens did not plant a simple tree. What she
planted is one of the major threats ever faced by forest biodiversity,
masked under the label of “science and innovation”. What she planted
is a symbol of corporate takeover of nature and a first step towards
environmental disaster. She probably got a round of applause from
VIB officials and their corporate partners. Well deserved for
her efforts no doubt.
However, the Belgian government needs to be reminded about its
commitments as party to the United Nations Convention on Biological
Diversity, which on this same month (May 22nd) commemorates International
Day for Biological Diversity, with this year’s theme being none
other than “Invasive Alien Species”. Planting GM poplars is clearly
a slap in the face to both the convention’s objectives and to
this year’s theme. What can there possibly be more alien than
a GM poplar, what can be more invasive than that and what can
be more effective for destroying biological diversity?
* for more information see
http://www.wrm.org.uy/subjects/GMTrees/Belgiumtrials.html
index
COMMUNITIES
AND FORESTS
-
Cambodia's Prey Long forest is “equivalent to life itself” for
local communities
Prey Long is the largest area of intact lowland evergreen forest
remaining in southeast Asia. It covers an area of about 3,600
square kilometres in the north of Cambodia. The name, “Prey Long”,
means “Our forest” in the language of the Kuy indigenous people
who live there. Elephants, tigers, bears, gaurs and banteng roam
the forest. The hooting of the pileated gibbon can be heard. Hornbills,
vipers, wild pigs and rare crocodiles, turtles, otters and frogs
live in the forest. Dipterocarp trees tower above the forest canopy,
some reaching 45 metres in height.
But Prey Long is under threat. Proposed plans include dozens of
mines, plantations, dams, power lines and roads. Illegal logging
is taking place. If the plans go ahead, Prey Long would become
an industrial zone. The livelihoods of up to 700,000 predominantly
indigenous people living in and around the forest are at risk.
A forthcoming video documentary, “One Forest, One Future” by Ben
and Jocelyn Pederick, features interviews with some of the local
people living in Prey Long. “Kuy people have been custodians of
this land since the time of our ancestors,” says Serey Thae. The
video shows how people use and protect the forest. “All the big
trees have spirits that belong to them. No one cuts those trees,”
says Srey Hong. “If they do they will die.”
The threats to Prey Long are part of the third phase of the government's
bargain basement sale of the country's land, forests and resources.
Phase one: logging concessions. In the 1990s, the government handed
over large areas of Cambodia's forest to logging companies. The
result was wide scale devastation of the forests. Since 2002,
a moratorium on logging concessions has been in place.
Phase two: economic land concessions. Many of these concessions
included forest, which companies clearcut. The Tumring Rubber
Plantation to the south of Prey Long is one example. In a 2007
report Global Witness documented how the plantation provided the
basis for large scale illegal logging of Prey Long by the Seng
Keang company, which has close links to the government.
Phase three: exploitation, use and development concessions. The
fact that they are not covered by Cambodia's land law does not
prevent the government from handing out concessions to mining
companies, often covering hundreds of square kilometres. In some
cases, no exploration or exploitation licenses exist in the concession
area. Global Witness found that millions of dollars in payment
for several concessions has simply gone missing.
Of the many mining concessions in and around Prey Long, the largest
belongs to Kenertec, a South Korean company which describes itself
as “The leader of the environmental energy industry in the 21st
century”. In 2008, Kenertec took over 85 per cent of an iron ore
mine in Rovieng District, on the northern border of the Prey Long
forest. The mine was previously under the control of the China
National Machinery & Equipment Import & Export Corporation
(a Chinese state-owned company), Pheapimex (one of Cambodia's
most powerful companies, responsible for extremely destructive
logging and plantation projects covering vast areas of Cambodia's
forests) and the Rattanak Stone Cambodia Development Company (which
is controlled by the Commander-in-Chief of the Cambodian Army,
Pol Saroeun). The mine site is protected by soldiers, employed
by Kenertec.
Kenertec also has exploration rights for eight sites in Cambodia,
covering a total area of 1,520 square kilometres, according to
the company. Kenertec plans to mine copper, lead, zinc, iron,
manganese, silica and jewels. The concession is to the north of
Prey Long and overlaps a large area of the forest.
Kenertec also has 60,000 hectares of economic land concessions
covering what it calls “scrub-covered land”. Kenertec plans to
plant rubber trees, cassava and jatropha. A biomass power plant
is also planned. The concession area is six times the area allowed
under Cambodia's land law.
“Our people are worried,” Ru Lark, a villager in Stung Treng told
video makers Ben and Jocelyn Pederick. “How many years does the
forest have left? How long can Prey Long survive?” Serey Thae
takes the film crew into the forest. “Here's the evidence,” he
says, pointing. “Trees are being cut, as big as 130 cm wide. And
then they've been burnt. From the mountain to the plains, the
trees have been cut down.”
Dr Andrew McDonald of the University of Texas has been studying
southeast Asia's rainforests for 15 years and is extremely concerned
about Prey Long. In an article in the Phnom Penh Post last year,
he notes that there is only one detailed scientific publication
about lowland rainforest in Cambodia. That study looked at an
area of forest near Sihanoukville in the south of the country.
Today, the forest is gone, replaced by a monoculture acacia plantation.
Prey Long, southeast Asia's most important remaining area of lowland
rainforest, could face a similar fate.
In 2008, Global Witness interviewed a Kenertec employee. He spoke
about Cambodia's potential as an investment opportunity. “I see
money everywhere,” he said. “In the trees, in the land, everywhere!”
The contrast with villagers' view of the forest could hardly be
more extreme. “Everything we need comes from the forest,” explains
En Nam, a villager from Kampong Thom province. “You can't put
a value on the forest. It is equivalent to life itself.”
By Chris Lang, http://chrislang.org
index
-
Ecuador: Disputes against shrimp farming contribute to women’s
lib
In Muisne, on the Northeast coast of Ecuador, the inhabitants
have developed a lifestyle adapted to mangrove ecosystems, based
on fishing and gathering shellfish and crabs. However, their livelihood
has been under threat since the eighties, when shrimp farming
started expanding in the region (WRM Bulletin
nº 51, October 2001).
Until the sixties, mangroves were considered as useless and valueless
swamps by the Government, allowing the local inhabitants to carry
out their traditional activities, such as hunting, fishing and
gathering wild plants for food, medicines and building. Then and
even now, the mangroves were public State-owned lands, under local
community management. In this framework, mangrove destruction
and privatization by the shrimp industry were illegal. The shrimp
farmers took over the land for their own benefit and the Government
even granted them concessions, sometimes based on false reports
(WRM Bulletin No. 14, August 1998, No. 21, March-June 1991, No.
36, July 2000).
As a result, from 1989 onwards, the inhabitants organized themselves
against mangrove destruction and privatization and claimed recognition
of their traditional rights to use this ecosystem. The first group
was set up in 1991 in Muisne, which became the Ecological Defence
Foundation (Fundación de Defensa Ecológica - FUNDECOL). Later
on, the dispute spread to the whole canton and become a social
movement upheld by the mangrove communities and in particular
by the women shell-gatherers, who gather shells and other molluscs
from mangroves.
The movement grew, thanks to the establishment of “user groups”
in the various villages in the canton. These groups started denouncing
illegal mangrove clearing to FUNDECOL, which later submitted these
complaints to the administration. Thus an efficient monitoring
network was set up submitting over 20 years, some one thousand
complaints and in 2003 obtaining an important achievement: the
creation of a 5,000 hectare mangrove reserve managed by FUNDECOL
and user groups. Unfortunately, between 60% and 90% of the mangrove
cover had already been lost. However, FUNDECOL and the user groups
had already started reforestation and other activities aimed at
promoting the revival of local culture: cookery competitions based
on mangrove products, murals explaining their struggle, the creation
of music and poetry groups, literacy courses, etc.
Several members of these groups composed songs. One of these composers
was Tania Bone Cagua, who lives in the village of Bolivar where
a group of "concheras"
(women shell gatherers) were determined to struggle and protect
their livelihood and environment. These women feed their families
and earn some money from gathering shellfish, mainly a clam-like
shell. Tania learnt to read and write thanks to FUNDECOL’s literacy
classes. Her capacity to express herself in writing and to have
the courage to speak in public, are among the main talents that
she discovered in herself thanks to the struggle and she is very
grateful for this. She wrote several militant songs and we are
attaching three of them: “Tristeza del manglar” (Mangrove Sadness),
“Conchera soy” (I am a shell-gatherer), and “Benditos camaroneros”
(Damned shrimp-farmers).
They can be accessed at
http://www.wrm.org.uy/paises/Ecuador/Canciones.html
The women from Bolivar explained that they have simultaneously
had to face two problems: shrimp farming and domination by men.
In fact, during the demonstrations that took place to protect
the mangroves, the village women were more active than the men.
They started action on a public level, hitherto undertaken by
men, such as leaving their homes and usual chores to take part
in demonstrations, meetings and reforestation activities or to
cover many kilometres to complain to the authorities about the
illegal clearing of mangroves by the shrimp farmers. This phenomenon
led to many cases of domestic violence, as the husbands were opposed
to such activities. However, the group and the aim of the struggles
gave the women the necessary support to question and re-negotiate
power relationships in their favour. Now it is they who “know”
the mangrove ecosystem, it is they who struggle successfully to
protect it. This gives them considerable material and symbolic
autonomy.
Here below are some excerpts from Tania Bone Cagua’s three songs
Mangrove sadness
How sad it has been to live without the mangroves
that the shrimp-farmers wanted to cut down
And now it is up to us shell-gatherers
to struggle and struggle and reforest again
I am a shell-gatherer tells us of the devalued status of
shell-gatherers, as it is a poor woman’s task.
So what do they want, what do they want me to do?
To be happy like on a holiday
while the mangroves are disappearing?
Do they want me to laugh?
For laughter to split my face like a fool?
For even governments have negotiated mangroves
I am a shell-gatherer and don’t pity me.
Damned shrimp-farmers
In the world the most wonderful thing that happened to me
Is to watch the group of women struggling for mangroves
They say we are tomboys but this is not true
We defend our ecosystem because we find species in it
We find shellfish there, our livelihood
We also find crabs, tasqueros and snails
Although mangrove inhabitants have struggled all these years,
in the autumn of 2009, the government of President Correa legalized
the illegal privatization of mangroves by shrimp farmers, ratifying
their rights in a legal writ. Two previous governments had attempted
to legalize the shrimp industry in Ecuador but the social movement
organized by associations for mangrove defence had halted the
process. This autumn, FUNDECOL and user groups also organized
big demonstrations in several cities, including Quito, to protest
against this law that will forever undermine their possibility
of claiming the mangroves. However, the Government has no intention
of changing its decision or of allowing the local inhabitants
to collectively manage mangrove areas. The policy of President
Correa’s government is framed in the conventional line of export
economy, based on ransacking natural resources, without caring
for their sustainable use or for the promotion of food security
and sovereignty, considering that 95% of the shrimp production
is for export. Thus it is the western countries that benefit from
this luxury food, while the ecological and social impacts are
localized in the producer country and are mainly a burden on the
poorer population. Along these lines, the present Government also
promotes industrial tree plantations and major open cast mining
projects, against the will of the people represented as a whole
by the National Environmental Assembly (Asamblea Nacional Ambiental).
Sandra Veuthey, e-mail: Sandra.Veuthey@campus.uab.es.
Article based on the author’s field observations.
index
- Gabon: Marc Ona Essangui awarded 2009 Goldman
Environmental Prize
At a ceremony held in San Francisco, USA on 20 April 2009, Marc
Ona Essangui was presented with the prestigious Goldman Environmental
Prize, which recognizes grassroots activists who take significant
risks to protect the environment and communities in their countries.
A founding member and executive secretary of Brainforest, a leading
Gabonese environmental NGO founded in 1998, Marc Ona was one of
six recipients of the prize this year, which is awarded annually
to environmental activists in six different regions of the world.
Marc Ona was selected primarily for his efforts to protect and
preserve Ivindo National Park, located in northeastern Gabon,
from the controversial Belinga iron ore mining project, which
calls into question the country’s commitments to environmental
protection.
Ivindo National Park is situated in the Congo Basin rainforest,
the world’s second largest after the Amazon rainforest. With the
support of other members of Gabonese civil society, Marc Ona headed
up a major campaign to inform both the Gabonese public and the
international community about the potential social and environmental
consequences of the Belinga mining project, and to demand that
the government carry out all of the necessary social and environmental
impact assessments.
Marc Ona is also at the forefront of the Gabonese civil society
efforts to raise awareness of the need for transparent and responsible
management of the revenues generated by the mining sector. He
is the national coordinator of the Publish What You Pay (PWYP)
coalition in Gabon, which has fought for greater transparency
around the government’s negotiations with a Chinese mining consortium
for the Belinga iron ore mining project.
With regard to the construction of a hydroelectric dam as part
of the Belinga project, Marc Ona told the Pan African News Agency:
“We believe that the reasons to protect Ivindo National Park also
include Kongou Falls (located inside the park), which form part
of our national heritage.” Brainforest has launched an international
petition through its website to save what is widely known as “the
most beautiful waterfalls in Central Africa”.
The many battles spearheaded by this tireless environmental activist
also include his tenacious opposition to the construction of an
airport north of Libreville in the Mondah Forest, which is a legally
protected area. Under Marc Ona’s leadership, the Gabon Environmental
Platform, comprising close to 20 environmental NGOs, mobilized
forces to warn of the consequences of this project, particularly
the dangers it entailed for Akanda National Park, an internationally
recognized site for migratory birds.
A similar mobilization of Gabonese NGOs, with Brainforest in the
lead, took place to harshly condemn the conduct of the French
energy group AREVA and its failure to rehabilitate the uranium
mines formerly run by its affiliate COMUF in southern Gabon. The
company is now being charged by local communities for numerous
cases of poisoning and health problems.
Marc Ona is also an active member of the multi-stakeholder national
committee (or Interest Group) responsible for the implementation
in Gabon of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative
(EITI). The EITI is an international initiative to promote greater
transparency in the oil, gas and mining sectors, and involves
cooperation and dialogue between governments, companies and civil
society. Gabon joined the EITI in 2004.
For Brainforest: Gualbert Phal Mezui Ndong, Communications and
International Relations Officer, and Protet Judicaël Essono Ondo,
Programme Coordinator,
http://www.brainforest.collectivex.com
index
-
Peru: Amazon peoples, bastions of resistance
Since 9 April, the communities of the Peruvian Amazon have started
what they have called an “indefinite strike” all over the Peruvian
Amazon, in response to the failure of the Congress of the Republic
to repeal six decrees considered prejudicial to the indigenous
peoples. These decrees were issued by the Executive in the framework
of the implementation of the Free Trade Agreement with the United
States and involve the imposition of industries destroying the
Amazon and its inhabitants, such as mining, oil exploitation and
timber plantations.
The International Human Rights Federation (IHRF) considered that
the decrees threaten the rights of the Amazon indigenous peoples
(1) , while the Congress of the Republic also adopted a Report
by a Special Commission, proposing that some of these decrees
be revoked (2).
The seriousness of the threat that involves putting the Amazon
up “for sale” is reflected in one of the examples quoted by the
expert Roger Rumrrill: “Oil plot No. 76, covering one million
five hundred hectares, will install 18 seismic lines, build 166
heliports, open up 1944 unloading areas and install 166 camping
sites. This plot will literally swallow up the Amarakaire Community
Reserve and will operate in the buffer zones of the Manu and Bahuaja-Sonene
National Parks and in the Tambopata-Candamo Reserve. This means
that it will seriously affect one of the areas containing the
world’s greatest biodiversity.” (3) In spite of protests, President
Alan Garcia authorized the Perenco Company to invest 2 billion
dollars in oil activities at Lot 67, located in Loreto. (4)
The Amazon protest started last July (see WRM Bulletin No. 132),
although subsequently it was suspended because the Congress of
the Republic committed itself to address the claim. However, as
stated by AIDESEP leaders “Far from keeping their promises, the
legislative issued Law 29317 that modifies and incorporates various
articles into decree 1090, known as the Forestry and Wildlife
Law.”(5) And so the mobilizations were reinitiated.
In a direct communication with WRM, the
organization Grufides reported that “socio-environmental disputes
have grown in the country. In Cajamarca, mining is the source
of innumerable disputes that have become increasingly violent
because of the impunity provided to those that hold power at the
regional level. Hundreds of peasants can find that their water
has been affected, such as the peasants using the Quilish canal
in Porcon –in addition to being denounced and penalized when they
react against this– while the mining company responsible for this
pollution goes unpunished. In Choropampa, San Juan and Magdalena,
thousands of peasants suffered mercury poisoning and even now
are demanding solutions to their health problems that have not
been addressed, either by the State or by the company that caused
this serious accident. In the Province of San Marcos, two teachers,
a regional councillor and seven peasants may be sent to prison
in the next few days for having protested against a Brazilian
mining company that went as far as hiring criminals to threaten
the organized peasant leaders. The laws menace peasants who are
defending their rights, while the responsible company officials
remain in total impunity and are supported by authorities at all
government levels. These past weeks have seen the greatest strike
ever in the history of Peru.”
As reported by Servindi, Kichua and Arabela indigenous peoples
blocked the passage of vessels along the Napo and Curaray rivers
in protest against the failure to comply with the document signed
between the authorities and the Repsol oil company.” (6) Also
AIDESEP has been informing of the several actions of
hundreds of indigenous people, peasant farmers and civil
society members who
joined in the march from different parts of the region. In the
Santiago, Cenepa and Santa María de Nieva River basins, they marched
to protest against the mining and oil companies that are trying
to take over their lands. The highway that connects Yurimaguas
and Tarpoto was blockaded with logs and stones at the kilometre
46 mark, while inhabitants of indigenous communities in the San
Martín region set up a road block at kilometre 5 of the Fernando
Belaunde Terry highway in the Maronilla district. In the Alto
Amazonas region, 7,000 peasants and indigenous people from the
Shawi, Cocama and Cocamilla communities occupied the port of El
Vado in Yurimaguas, forcing a halt to trade and land and river
transportation. In Bagua, the highway that leads to the district
of Santa María de Nieva was blockaded with dozens of cars. Asháninka
indigenous people occupied the Atalaya aiport in Ucayali. Machiguenga
indigenous people from Bajo Urubamba and Alto Urubamba, members
of COMARU, blocked vehicular traffic and river transportation
into Bajo Urubamba. The headquarters of the sub-region of Santa
Clotilde in the district capital of Napo was occupied by Kichwa
and Arabela indigenous people, with the backing of residents from
numerous surrounding districts and Santa Clotilde, which is situated
near the midway point of the Napo River. Blockades were also set
up across the upper and lower stretches of the river, which further
obstructed the passage of boats travelling between Iquitos and
the Ecuadorian border. Hundreds of Awajún and Wampi indigenous
people marched on Petroperú Stations 5 and 6 – which form part
of the Northern Peru oil pipeline – and occupied the facilities.
In the Plaza de Armas de Jaén, residents of the city of Baguá
started a protest vigil against the policies of the García government.
The Kichwa people of the Alto Putumayo region, on the Colombian
border, joined in the Amazon general strike, while Andean indigenous
communities staged protests in support of their Amazonian brothers
and sisters. (7) According to information provided by Thomas Quirynen,
collaborator in the South for Catapa, three petrol stations (nr.
5, 6 and 7) were occupied by the protesters as a direct result
of the radicalisation of the strike; because of this action the
pumping of crude oil has been suspended (see full article and
photos at
http://www.wrm.org.uy/countries/Peru/strike.html).
However, the demands of the Amazon peoples
are ignored by the Government and in general, the mass media does
not report on what is actually happening. On Saturday 9 May the
Government decreed a state of emergency in nearly all the Amazon
territory, leaving the door open to violation of the human rights
of the Amazon citizens who are struggling to defend their lives
from the threat of uncontrolled encroachment by oil, mining, gas
and forestry companies.
On 10 May, President Alan Garcia ordered repression of the Awajun
and Wampi indigenous peoples who were protesting on the Corral
Quemado bridge at Bagua Grande. They were dispersed by force with
the use of tear gas, blows and bullets resulting in ten people
injured, three of them seriously, seven arrests and several disappearances.
Indigenous, peasant and agrarian organizations from all over the
country announced that they would intensify measures “until we
have Legislative Decrees 994, 1064, 1020, 1080, 1081, 1083, 1089,
1060, 995 and the Water Resources Law repealed.” (8) Indigenous
organizations participating in the Amazon-Andean National Meeting
in preparation for the Fourth Continental Summit Meeting of Indigenous
Peoples and Nationalities of the Abya Yala, to take place this
month in Puno, declared that “Although these laws have been declared
unconstitutional both by the Constitutional Tribunal and by the
Multiparty Congress Commission, there is no political will to
repeal them.” They convened the indigenous communities from all
over the country to comply with the “National Rising” to be held
as from 7 July, as a measure of protest.
The testimonial of another Peruvian friend, whose identity we
will keep anonymous, reflects the situation: “I am a leader of
this strike and I have been threatened with death. This doesn’t
matter, if I must lose my life for my brothers and sisters, my
children and the world, then so be it. We need the world to know
about our struggles. Give us a hand to save the planet. We have
no economic support, we do what we can. Our Shawi, Aguaruna and
Wambiasa brothers and sisters, we will not lose faith; if it is
necessary we will sacrifice our lives to defend our lands and
our forests. Friends, be our voices in the world. Thank you a
thousand times on behalf of our Mother Nature.”
(1) “Perú: FIDH insta derogar DL que atentan contra la Amazonía”,
Servindi,
http://www.servindi.org/actualidad/11439
(2) “Perú: Congreso aprueba Informe que deroga decretos legislativos”,
Servindi,
http://www.servindi.org/actualidad/11357
(3) “Perú: Estado de emergencia contra los pueblos indígenas amazónicos”,
Servindi,
http://www.servindi.org/actualidad/opinion/11436
(4) “Perú: García autorizó inversión de Perenco por $2 mil millones
en Loreto”, Servindi,
http://www.servindi.org/actualidad/11155
(5) “Perú: AIDESEP y Ejecutivo crean Mesa de Diálogo para atender
demandas de indígenas amazónicos”, Servindi,
http://www.servindi.org/actualidad/10713
(6) Information from AIDESEP,
http://www.aidesep.org.pe
(7) “Perú: Amazónicos inician paro indefinido por incumplimiento
del Congreso”, Servindi,
http://www.servindi.org/actualidad/10257
(8) “Perú: Andinos y amazónicos acuerdan radicalizar protesta”,
Servindi,
http://www.servindi.org/actualidad/11414.
index
-
Strong protest against WWF’s plans to certify the unsustainable
industrial aquaculture
The rapid rise in global demand for cheap shrimp and farmed salmon
has caused extensive degradation of mangrove wetlands and other
coastal ecosystems and subsequent losses in biodiversity. These
losses have also destroyed livelihoods among local communities
and indigenous peoples in many nations across the global South.
Without changing the production-commercialisation-consumption
pattern, World Wildlife Fund (WWF) plans to create a certification
body for the industrial production of shrimp and salmon which
would just “greenwash” the unsustainable industrial aquaculture.
Over 70 human rights and environmental groups from around the
world have expressed outrage at the planned launch of the World
Wildlife Fund's Aquaculture Stewardship Council, in a letter sent
today to leading members of WWF, which is reproduced below:
“Letter to WWF from 70 International NGO Networks, Organizations
and Individuals
Opposing the Formation of the Aquaculture Stewardship Council
We the undersigned non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and concerned
individuals from around the world are deeply troubled by the intentions
of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) to form the Aquaculture Stewardship
Council (ASC). Strong opposition to this latest among many such
recent certification initiatives is based upon our years of collective
experience in working to counter the negative effects of the industrial
aquaculture of shrimp, salmon and other carnivorous marine fin-fish
species. We see the ASC as yet another attempt by a Big International
NGO to formulate some ill-conceived plan to remedy the problems
of unsustainable industrial aquaculture. These kinds of flawed
remedies do not involve the local communities and grassroots movements
in the process of defining steps to be taken, thereby excluding
those peoples most affected by these industries’ ongoing assaults
on ocean health and coastal integrity.
Current attempts by WWF and other intended certifiers are not
supported by local communities and indigenous peoples, the global
network of NGOs, academics and citizens who are still demanding
a moratorium on further expansion of these socially disruptive
and ecologically destructive industries.
Having gained a better understanding of the proposed mechanism
for developing global standards for industrial aquaculture, we
NGOs and representatives of regional NGO networks and organizations
from Asia, Latin America, Africa, Europe and North America must
continue to take a strong stance against these various certification
schemes. We believe that these attempts at certification are funder
and industry driven, and do not allow the voice of the majority
of affected stakeholders – local communities and indigenous peoples
- to have meaningful input into this so-called "dialogue"
and standard-setting process.
The proposed standards that will define the Aquaculture Stewardship
Council appear to be largely based upon supporting unsustainable,
open throughput systems of aquaculture production, whether for
shrimp, salmon or other fin-fish species, and not upon more sustainable
closed production approaches, indicating that the proposed ASC’s
process is aimed in an inappropriate and environmentally dangerous
direction.
We demand that WWF halt this initiative to form the ASC and immediately
initiate real and meaningful dialogues with affected communities,
not just with industry and a few NGOs and academics. There still
is a great need for strict social and rights-based standards,
not just environmental and technical fixes initiated at the aquaculture
farm level. That vital component of the dialogues with the local
communities and indigenous peoples is still missing, and their
voices are still not heard within those elite circles that are
now attempting to form the ASC. We the undersigned now join hands
to strongly state our opposition to the ASC process.
(See letter
with signatures and press release at
http://www.wrm.org.uy/deforestation/mangroves/aquaculturecertification.pdf
)
index
COMMUNITIES
AND TREE MONOCULTURES
- Australia: Concern over plantations swept
under the carpet by environmental movement
Australia like all colonial countries was founded upon the theft
of indigenous peoples land. However in Australia, the authorities
took the theft one step further by declaring the continent to
be ‘Terra Nullius’, meaning an empty land or a land
belonging to nobody. Terra Nullius guaranteed
indigenous people no legal rights, for how could they have rights
if legally they did not exist?
In the southern parts of Australia, that meant that the indigenous
survivors of the massacres and disease were rounded up onto mission
stations and ‘removed from most white people’s view’. With the
indigenous population dislocated from their countries, Europeans
moved in and attempted to ‘Europeanise’ the land, mostly with
disastrous results.
Widespread clearing of the land took place both for agricultural
expansion and forestry. An indigenous description of the environmental
carnage that eventuated described it as; ‘ like a plague of locusts
descending upon the land, devouring everything in sight’.
By the late 1960’s and early 1970’s export wood chipping operations
increased the rate of destruction of native forests. 40-50% of
the native forest timber produced in Australia was exported to
Japan as woodchips. By the 1990’s that figure had increased to
80%.
Also in the 1960’s, efforts to fund an expansion of Australia’s
plantation base occurred and resulted in the clearing of large
tracts of native forests. Conservationists were opposed to such
plantation establishment, as they were to the clearfelling of
large tracts of native forest. Essentially the conservation movement
in Australia was dominated by groups wanting to protect the natural
biodiversity of the nation’s forests.
However by 1989 Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology published
a paper called "No Need for Conflict". The paper was
written by Judy Clark (a resource economist and ex government
bureaucrat) and Margaret Blakers (a forest campaigner). The paper
began promoting the view that with a growing plantation base it
was possible for Australia to stop logging native forests entirely,
with all of the country’s sawn timber needs coming from softwood
plantations and pulp from softwood and hardwood plantations. Plantations
established in the 1960's were ready to be logged meaning that
a large volume of plantation timber was available.
The first group to publicly endorse this position was The Wilderness
Society in 1991 who encouraged consumers of timber to be ‘ethical’
by only buying plantation timber. In July 1995 Australia’s State
and Territory Conservation Councils commissioned the report “Australia’s
Plantations” by Judy Clark. This report brought together information
from the entire country, again with the agenda of speeding the
transition from native forests into plantations. In 1996 the Australian
Conservation Foundation also endorsed a no native forest logging
policy. The Greens political party was also active in supporting
plantations.
Barely no mention was made by pro-plantation groups of the obvious
problems with plantations, such as pesticide use and water consumption
or (shock horror) indigenous land rights. Previously, environment
groups had been critical of industrial forestry in all its shapes
and guises. Plantation criticism from the mid 1990’s would now
only come from a small minority in the movement and from communities
impacted by plantations.
By 1996 ENGO groups such as Friends of the Earth who questioned
the sustainability of plantations started to come under increasing
pressure to support a no native forest logging stance and a rift
developed in the forest movement, with people critical of plantations
either sidelined or ignored completely. A plantations only policy
was one that FoE could not support because only two years earlier
FoE activists in Tasmania had been poisoned with Atrazine leaching
from a eucalypt plantation at Lorinna. How could FoE endorse a
plantation policy that poisoned domestic water supplies!"
Criticism included any logging of native forest for any purpose.
Restoration forestry, eco-logging, firewood harvesting etc etc
were all treated with suspicion. Essentially then the majority
of the Australian environmental movement had by 1996 been voluntarily
captured by the plantation only ‘no-native forest logging’ ideology.
In 1997 the State and Federal Government’s announced the 2020
Vision, which essentially would see a trebling of Australia’s
plantation base by the year 2020. From one million hectares to
three million hectares. Criticism of the Vision (one of Australia’s
largest ever corporate land grabs) was almost non-existent from
ENGO’s. How could a movement almost fully supportive of plantations
come out and criticize a plan to treble their size? What a bonus
for the plantation companies!
Likewise with plans to quicken up the pace of plantation development
in an international sense, how could Australian ENGO’s fully criticise
plantation development in other countries when they supported
similar development in their own country?
With Forest Stewardship Council entering Australia in 2002, the
nascent Environmental Chamber could not agree on certification
in native forests and since that time certification has occurred
only in plantations under interim standards.
In summary, the push for plantations in Australia by ENGO’s has
come as a result of widespread destruction of native forests and
desperate attempts to save what is left from the woodchippers.
However in their haste to promote plantations a number of key
ecological and social concerns with plantations have been entirely
“swept under the carpet” by the ‘environmental movement. This
has left the fight against plantations in Australia to unfunded
communities and a sparse scattering of environmentalists, including
myself.
By Anthony Amis,
Friends of the Earth Melbourne, email: anthonyamis@hotmail.com
Further information on this issue is available at:
http://www.hancock.forests.org.au
http://www.baddevelopers.green.net.au/Docs/bluegumswesternvic.htm
http://www.baddevelopers.green.net.au/Docs/talltreespot.htm
index
-
Cambodia: Indigenous people confronted with a rubber plantation
empire
In the remote Cambodian province of Mondulkiri, the villagers
of Busra feel their future fragile and uncertain since the Cambodian
government has decided to grant an economic concession to a project
of rubber plantation on their ancestral lands. Some of them have
sold their land thinking that money was the only reliable thing
they could get after months and months of defiance and mistrust.
Their mistrust was turned against Khaou Chuly Development (KCD),
the Cambodian shareholder denounced for its brutal methods and
more recently against its partner in the joint venture between
Khaou Chuly and Socfinal, a subsidiary company of the Bolloré
Group, key actor in the rubber plantations in Africa.
In December 2008, the tension was so high as well as their need
to be heard, that hundreds of ethnic Bunong villagers from the
Busra commune protested against the company Khaou Chuly, perhaps
the most important construction and engineer company in Cambodia,
who had started clearing the forest and fields close to their
village. The demonstration turned violent as the villagers torched
and smashed vehicles belonging to the company. People were angry
because the company’s land clearing disrupted their agricultural
activities, as family farms and crops have been destroyed to make
space for the rubber trees nursery. The land, 2,700
hectares, was granted to the joint venture Socfin KCD by the government
late in 2007.
According to the villagers, the company offered them three options:
relocate the families on other farmland of the same size; pay
a compensation to the families who would accept to leave their
land; let them stay on their land if they produce rubber and they
will get a share of the profit from the company. But at that time,
these solutions did not appear fair to the villagers who simply
asked to get their land back (Cambodia Daily, December 22, 2008).
Few days after the protest, a meeting was organized, at the Busra
referral commune hall, attended by villagers, company representatives,
commune, district and provincial authorities, commune councilors,
villages’ chiefs and NGOs workers.
There, 1,030 families from seven villages
-the majority of them Bunong- declared that the land belonged
to them, because they have been using it for their rotational
farming activities since decades, and they have legal ownership
according to the Land Law, which protect indigenous common property
rights. The meeting failed, as the villagers accused the authorities
of being biased in favor of the company. According to the authorities,
villagers will benefit from the company, getting new jobs, hospitals,
schools and houses for rubber workers. But the villagers didn’t
agree, and claim instead that if anybody wants to improve the
living standards of the people, they should come and discuss with
the people first, not just send equipment and start clearing land
(Cambodia Daily December 24, 2008). The company represented during
the meeting wasn’t just Khaou Chuly but a new entity, Socfin KCD,
who wasn’t mentioned by the national media.
Only on April 8 2009, it was announced by the daily newspaper
Phnom Penh Post that a joint rubber deal had been signed, between
“France’s Socfina and the Khaou Chuly Group to create 10,000
hectares rubber plantation and processing facilities in Mondulkiri”.
The President of Khaou Chuly declared that “his company was providing
30% of the total capital, with the other 70 percent to be supplied
by the French company.”
In fact, the name of Socfina seems to be wrong as everybody on
the field talk about Socfin. According to our research, this company
is based in Cambodia, directed by Philippe Monnin, a French expert
in rubber plantation who worked for years as consultant for the
Cambodian ministry of Agriculture on projects of family
scale rubber plantations in Kompong Cham province.
On the web (www.socfinal.lu) it appears that Socfin KCD is owned
at 60% by Socfinasia, with is held at 53% by Socfinal, a holding
based in Luxemburg. Socfinal is a mixed group, which is controlled
by Belgian families, amongst them the Fabri, and held at 38% by
a French financial and agribusiness group, lead by Bolloré. Questioned
on the main shareholders of Socfin in Cambodia, a source gave
the names of the French Vincent Bolloré, and the Belgian Hubert
Fabri. Two names that come again and again in this galaxy. So
Socfin KCD is one of this constellation of companies involved
in the rubber plantations in Ivory Coast, Nigeria, Congo (RDC),
Kenya, Cameroon, Liberia and Indonesia and... Cambodia. A recent
article by the French newspaper Le Monde diplomatique informs
us about the activities in Africa of the Bolloré group (Port,
rail, plantations: le triste bilan de Bolloré au Cameroun, www.monde-diplomatique.fr
April 2009).
Socfin KCD is also one of these subsidiary companies of companies
founded with cross holdings, a system that allows the shareholders,
always the same small group of persons, to save a maximum profit
and pay minimum taxes. Of course they are located in tax havens
where the profits disappear. A very interesting investigation
written by a French journalist, Martine Orange, has been published
in February 2009 by the web newspaper Mediapart (the investigation
is available at this address:
www.mediapart.fr/files/Bollore_iliad.pdf).
This opaque world of the finance, the people of Busra have no
idea about. They can not imagine the benefits a rubber plantation
can bring on the long term; their land is bought between 200 and
300 $ per hectare (that’s the range of prices given by watchdogs
in Busra, and is very low compared to average price). Now the
tension has fallen, and has left to division, disillusion and
mistrust: some people are hopeless, while other are confident
in the bright future that the company disclose to them. Socfin
KCD does not skimp efforts: they invited the local VIPs to a meal
washed down with plenty of beer and offered a huge show to the
villagers during festivities which included the most famous comics
of the Cambodian scene, sexy girls and beautiful fireworks.
Recently, the Agence française de développement, the French Development
Agency (AFD) has visited the place. They
might be interested to support family rubber
plantations around the Socfin KCD concession, and they are going
to ask for a social, economic and environmental impact assessment
of the concession project. None of such assessments has been done
before granting the concession.
The villagers still complain, they want to be part of development,
and do not want that others choose for
them. They want to be considered and they want their culture to
be valued and respected. Socfin KCD continues to work, especially
on communication and public relations. Other actors, government,
authorities, international organizations, are silent. Will the
villagers let them convince or will they resist? And who will
support them in this struggle?
index
-
Chile: Opposition to government subsidies for the expansion of
monoculture tree plantations
In response to the global economic crisis that erupted late last
year, Chilean President Michelle Bachelet has announced a series
of measures to foster job creation and economic recovery. One
of the most surprising measures is the decision to temporarily
increase the subsidies granted to tree plantations under Decree
Law 701.
Decree Law 701, also known as the Forestry Promotion Law, is the
main instrument underlying a forestry model that has contributed
to the unjust and voracious appropriation of land, and the expansion
of monoculture tree plantations into areas formerly covered by
native forest and fertile farmland. The law was passed in 1974,
during the Chilean military dictatorship, which also facilitated
the occupation of Mapuche indigenous territory. Land ownership
became concentrated in the hands of two major economic groups:
the Matte family group (CMPC) and the Angelini group (Copec–Arauco-Celco).
The law provides subsidies amounting to 75% of the net costs of
establishing plantations, in addition to tax exemptions and guaranteed
protection against expropriation of the land.
A few months before announcing this new measure, President Bachelet
had met with high-level executives from these companies to pledge
the government’s contribution of three billion pesos to the Bioenercel
Technological Consortium. This consortium was formed by three
major forestry companies (Arauco, CMPC and Masisa), the University
of Concepción, the Pontifical Catholic University of Valparaíso
and Fundación Chile to conduct research on the production of so-called
second-generation biofuels –specifically, the production of fuel
from pine and eucalyptus biomass- which represents a further incentive
for the increased expansion of monoculture tree plantations.
These latest measures come on top of the government’s ongoing
support and commitment to the goal of an additional one million
hectares of plantations in 10 years. In other words, the new “anti-crisis
forestry measure” reaffirms the government’s support to this sector,
alluding to the fact that it is a sector that is highly sensitive
to the ups and downs of the global economy, since more than 90%
of the wood and pulp produced is exported. These government aid
measures ignore the countless demands of communities who are struggling
to survive surrounded by thousands of hectares of pine and eucalyptus
monoculture plantations, or who suffer from the contamination
of their water as a result of the pulp industry.
Alarmed by this situation, the Foresters'
Association for Native Forests declared in a public statement
that this forestry model “dominated by transnationals that have
established vast areas of alien tree specie monocultures over
the last three decades, accumulating wealth in very few hands
and displacing rural populations,” is not sustainable. They called
on the government to stop granting subsidies to large forestry
companies because of the damage they cause to the environment
and water resources, in addition to the social and cultural impacts
on nearby communities. They urged President Bachelet to halt the
growth of tree plantations, stressing that the Chilean government
must not be an accomplice to this disaster. They also highlighted
the urgent need to strengthen policies for medium- and small-scale
agriculture, the sector most affected by the change in land use,
and to develop a democratic land use management system. (The full
statement is available in Spanish at
http://www.wrm.org.uy/paises/Chile/Ingenieros_Forestales.html)
Meanwhile, 26 Mapuche indigenous, social and environmental organizations
gathered in Temuco for a meeting on “Impacts of Tree Plantations
on Climate Change, Desertification and Drought” and issued a declaration
stating that the current Chilean forestry model is responsible
for the loss of agricultural land, the decrease and disappearance
of underground and surface water sources, the loss of native forest,
and the destruction of the way of life and culture of local communities.
Directed to the government, the declaration further states:
• We condemn the fact that these decisions – which affect many
territories and communities – are adopted bilaterally between
the government and large forestry companies, excluding the communities
that suffer from the expansion of plantations.
• We demand an end to direct and indirect subsidies for the forestry
sector using resources that belong to all of the inhabitants of
Chile and are not meant to favour specific economic groups. It
is time for the state to stop plundering goods and resources that
are public and collective and correspond to the sovereignty of
the people.
• We demand the suspension of the measure to increase the resources
allocated to forestry subsidies, the definitive repeal of Decree
Law 701, and the redirection of these resources to support peasant
agriculture and repair the damages caused, in order to foster
and promote local and diversified economies.
The full text of the declaration (in Spanish) is available at:
http://www.wrm.org.uy/paises/Chile/No_expansion_forestal.html
It is important to point out that this meeting – which was not
organized by the government, but rather by the Latin American
Environmental Conflicts Observatory – has been the only forum
where the communities affected by monoculture tree plantations
have had the opportunity to voice their position on this subject.
The meeting also served as a broad-based means of coordination
to continue working to demand an end to government subsidies for
forestry companies and to permanently halt the establishment of
large-scale pine and eucalyptus monoculture plantations.
Latin American Environmental Conflicts Observatory (OLCA),
http://www.olca.cl/oca/index.htm,
member of the Latin American Network Against Monoculture Tree
Plantations (RECOMA).
index
-
China: Eucalyptus plantations - from Finland with conflict
Eucalyptus plantations have become a harsh issue for Chinese farmers
of the villages north of the city of Hepu in the province of Guangxi,
south of China. Their collective land has been expropriated to
make way for monoculture tree plantations.
Behind the move is the Finnish-Swedish forestry giant Stora Enso,
that plans to lease 180,000 hectares of land for half a century
to plant eucalyptus that will feed the company’s pulp mill near
the city of Beihai.
According to a report by Petteri Tuohinen from the Finnish publication
Helsingin Sanomat, “Stora Enso is one of about 260 Finnish companies
that is seeking profit from the growing Chinese market. Foreign
operations is vital for Stora Enso. When the company presented
its quarterly results on Thursday, CEO Jouko Karvinen said that
considerable profits abroad helped cover losses made in Finland.”
(1)
However, the business has implied a lot of conflict. In China
all land belongs to the state or to rural communities, and Stora
Enso has to lease the land as it cannot own it. So, once it has
the officials on its side, it is them who get the land for the
eucalyptus plantations -and local authorities have been very akin
to promote industrial tree plantations. Accordingly, they have
tried to seize the land used by the villagers to hand it over
to Stora Enso. Not without resistance, though.
Because of the vagueness of land ownership in China it is often
unclear who has the right to use land. Many villagers didn’t believe
in the promises of prosperity of the so called “forest project”
in the Hepu area. For those who lost their land, compensation
was about EUR 50 a year per hectare for the expropriated land.
That is meaningless for people who have been making their living
growing beans, maize, fruits or bamboos with which baskets and
other goods were made. These means of livelihood were gone with
the land. Now the area is full of eucalyptus seedlings.
All this has led to mounting conflict from villagers whose opposition
to Stora Enso’s plantations has been confronted with harsh violence
by local officials. Land disputes reached a peak in 2004 and several
people were injured. As a last resort, villagers in the land disputes
have now turned to appeal as a last resort, although with little
hope: “We have no option left than to appeal the situation. However,
there is no point in expecting results from the appeal. Stora
Enso is taking the rice bowl away from the farmers here”, says
a village activist quoted by Helsingin Sanomat.
Even lawyer Yang Zaixin who defends the rights of the villagers
was stormed and beaten by a group of men in what seems to be an
intimidation to his work. Yang was quoted saying he is not sure
if Stora Enso knew about the beating: “They don’t have to become
directly involved in this kind of thing. Stora Enso merely pressures
local officials to make sure that the company will get the land
that it needs to grow its eucalyptus trees.” However, the company
was aware of the lawyer and his defense of the villagers since
he met with the field manager of Stora Enso and the company’s
lawyer.
Land disputes are not new for Stora Enso. The same company’s Head
of Sustainability Eija Pitkänen recognizes it: “Land use and land
ownership are big issues. That is why there will always be conflicts.
They cannot be averted”.
Friends of the Earth Finland have denounced the lack of real participation
of local residents in impact assessments of forestry companies’
projects: “For instance, in Brazil, Stora Enso works only with
those organisations that take a conciliatory view, and are certain
to cooperate. In China, professional businesses and organisations
are often under so much pressure that they do not dare bring forward
any negative sides”, says Noora Ojala, Vice President of Friends
of the Earth Finland. (2)
Finnish investment abroad may solve losses at home but surely
also expands abroad conflicts and violence that fall on the weakest.
(1) “Chinese farmers lose land to Stora Enso tree plantations”,
http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Chinese+farmers+lose+land
+to+Stora+Enso+tree+plantations/1135245537698
(2) “Finnish Prime Minister wants investigation into claims of
violence linked with Stora Enso activities in China”,
http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Stora+Enso+to+investigate+
land+use+dispute+over+tree+plantations+in+China/1135245533336.
index
-
Costa Rica: Government boosts subsidies for monoculture tree plantations
Back in 2003, we said that “using the term reforestation for the
establishment of a monoculture tree plantation has historically
conferred on this type of activity all of the positive characteristics
that people rightly associate with a forest, although this is
far from the actual reality” (Ambientico magazine, issue 123,
December 2003,
www.una.ac.cr/ambi/Ambien-Tico/123). We added that “in general,
tree plantations are used to grow a single species or, at most,
a small number of species of trees, always using specimens of
the same age and never achieving the degree of biodiversity or
the complex interrelations found in a forest.” For his part, Edwin
Alpizar noted that “plantations, in comparison with forests, contribute
very little to the environment,” and he further described the
impacts of plantations in terms of loss of biodiversity and damage
to natural water systems.
In spite of all this, and in spite of the fact that monoculture
tree plantations have failed to become self-financing, the Costa
Rican government has subsidized them and continues to provide
them with subsidies, directly and indirectly, camouflaged under
the euphemism of “payment for environmental services”. Between
2006 and 2007, the state subsidy for the establishment of monoculture
tree plantations was raised from USD 500 per hectare to USD 810
per hectare.
The justification given at the time for this increase was that
the total amount allocated would be disbursed over a longer period
of time – which was in turn increased from five years to ten years
– in order to ensure the long-term growth of the plantations.
Nevertheless, in 2008, with no explanation whatsoever, the period
for the disbursement of these funds was reduced to five years
once again. And this year, the logging industry, backed by one
of its long-time leaders – current Environment Minister Jorge
Rodriguez – gave itself another hefty raise. Under Executive Decree
No. 35159-MINAET (Ministry of the Environment, Energy and Telecommunications),
passed in April 2009, the subsidy for monoculture tree plantations
was increased yet again, with no explanation, from USD 810 to
USD 960 per hectare – in other words, a 20% increase.
At the same time, this constitutes an indirect subsidy for big
exporters of fresh fruit – pineapples and bananas – since over
80% of the wood harvested on tree plantations is currently used
to make wooden pallets used to export fruit. The government finances
wood production so that the companies that reap juicy profits
from fruit exports can count on cheap wood for their pallets.
For their part, monoculture pineapple and banana plantations cause
severe impacts of their own, which have been widely documented
in the mainstream media over recent years: the sterilization and
poisoning of hundreds of workers, contamination of rural waterways,
erosion and deforestation.
There are currently over 26 pineapple-growing companies under
investigation for environmental destruction, according to a report
carried out in March 2009 in the community of Milano, in the province
of Limón (1). The report also denounces the deforestation caused
by the expansion of pineapple monocultures, leading to the disappearance
of protected species like cedar, andiroba and sparrowhawks, as
well as the selective cutting of tree species like bay laurel
to prevent the “contamination” of pineapples for export, which
would be prohibited in Europe for failing to meet health or plant
health standards.
With regard to the clearing of forests, one of the community members
interviewed gave the following testimony: “I was a security guard
for the company and I saw everything they did to the forest. Before,
everything was covered by a thick forest cover. The company started
to cut down trees at night, trees that were made of very good
wood, and they buried them because it was prohibited by the government
to cut them down.” He added: “The company has left us with nothing.
The birds and other animals went away too after the forests disappeared.”
What is particularly sad is that this whole plantation scheme
is being promoted through the “Plant a Tree!” publicity campaign,
which among other things, counts the trees planted by large corporations
as “reforestation”, even though most of them are cut down after
only eight years to make wooden pallets. Last year, around 80%
of the trees reported by this campaign were alien species planted
on large monoculture plantations subsidized by the government.
The country needs wood, of course, but it also needs forests to
confront climate change. There are numerous proposals for producing
wood through more socially just and environmentally sound methods,
some of which can be seen by visiting www.coecoceiba.org
By Javier Baltodano, COECOCEIBA-Friends of the Earth, Costa Rica,
email: licania@racsa.co.cr
(1) “Informe de la misión de verificación sobre los impactos de
los monocultivos de piña” (Report of the fact-finding mission
on the impacts of pineapple monocultures), community of Milano,
province of Limón, Costa Rica, 29 March 2009. The full report
is available in Spanish at:
http://www.wrm.org.uy/paises/CostaRica/Informe_monocultivo_pina.pdf.
index
-
Guatemala: Social and environmental impacts of oil palm plantations
In comparison, Guatemala is a relatively small country but it
is very rich in biodiversity. The country is located in the Meso-American*
region, the centre of origin of traditional maize and bean landraces,
as well as of various species of pumpkins among others.
The fact of being located between two big oceans, the differences
in altitude ranging from sea level to an altitude of 4,220 metres
at the summit of the Tajumulco volcano and being part of a great
continental bridge has generated great biological wealth resulting
in a wide variety of ecosystems and animal and plant species,
many of them used by local communities for their subsistence.
A major part of this natural wealth has quickly been lost due
to changes in land use and poor land management influenced by
economic and political interests. The agro-industrial model of
monoculture plantations and products that are not aimed at feeding
the population but at exports has left its mark on nature and
on the human communities, causing serious negative environmental
and social impacts.
The large scale agro-export and monoculture model which had previously
been mainly concentrated in the southern coastal region has now
moved to Departments in the north of the country where, in addition
to sugar cane plantations, oil palm plantations are to be found.
The expansion of oil palm plantation companies is taking place
in a context of evictions and forced purchase of land from impoverished
communities that have to migrate to other locations.
The areas most affected by monoculture oil palm plantations are:
the Izabal region, specifically near the Wildlife Refuge of Bocas
del Polochic, which is also a Ramsar site, and the North Transversal
Strip region in Ixcan and the south of Petén.
According to the National Statistics Institute, in 2003, 49 farms
were devoted to oil palm production, covering a total area of
31,185 hectares and producing over seven million quintals, mainly
used in the preparation of essential oils and waxes for the food
and soap industry.
The 2007 farm survey established that the number of farms dedicated
to this product had increased to 1,049 for that year and that
the area under cultivation with oil palm had spread to 65,340
hectares, implying that it had doubled over the past 4 years.
Figures in an Action Aid report dated June 2008 show an estimated
total of 83,385 hectares under plantation or in the process of
plantation with oil palm for the production of biodiesel.
In spite of human rights violations and the ecological damage
caused by oil palm plantations, the issue has not yet been placed
on the national public agenda or debate in Guatemala. Negative
impacts presently being generated are: loss of land for agriculture,
forced land purchase, displacement and forced migration towards
protected areas, where these communities are pinpointed as “invaders”
and accused of destroying the natural heritage. The causes and
the origin of this action are never mentioned. The abusive use
of water sources and competition over water between the vast tracts
of oil palm and sugar cane and the rural communities are additional
impacts.
In many places, forests and natural ecosystems have already been
destroyed for the production of oils and sugar, transforming them
into monoculture plantations. This causes considerable negative
repercussions on nature, ecosystem connectivity and on people.
With agro-industrial activities and plantations our country loses
much more than biodiversity. It loses the possibility of providing
fairer and more decent living conditions to present and future
generations.
By Carlos Salvatierra, SAVIA / Guatemala, e-mail:
salvatierraleal@gmail.com, with information
quoted and contained in Action Aid’s document “Las Plantaciones
para Agrocombustibles y la pérdida de tierras para la producción
de alimentos en Guatemala” (Plantations for Agrofuels and the
loss of land for food production in Guatemala).
*Includes Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras,
Mexico, Nicaragua and Panama.
index
-
New video online on timber plantations in Southern Africa
The Southern African organization GeaSphere has produced the online
video “Earth Matters” which can be viewed (in two parts) at
http://www.wrm.org.uy/Videos/Earth_Matters.html
In this video, Philip Owen of GeaSphere describes the social and
environmental impacts of high impact, fast rotation timber plantations
in Southern Africa. Philip’s explanations, coupled with other
testimonies and impressive images of alien tree monocultures –as
well as natural grassland and forest ecosystems- provide a clear
picture on the disaster that these plantations have meant for
local people and the native environment. The video describes water
depletion, biodiversity loss and soil erosion caused by plantations
as well as their incapacity for providing employment opportunities
to local populations. Philip highlights that –in spite of all
those impacts- 80% of these plantations are FSC certified as “responsibly
managed forests”, thus making the FSC seal meaningless.
The video also explains that most of these plantations are aimed
at exporting pulp for feeding overconsumption of paper and paper
products in countries of the North. This means the installation
of pulp mills to convert the plantations’ wood into pulp for export
and the pollution resulting from these pulp mills that affect
the local environment.
We encourage you to see and share this excellent video, particularly
with people that are still unaware about the impacts of industrial
tree monocultures.
