OUR VIEWPOINT
-
Community rights should be at the centre of resource use in
Africa
Africa is fast becoming
the Promised Land for emerging powers –as in the cases
of Brazil, China and India- trying to outcompete the old colonial
powers in the scramble for the riches of this continent. At
the same time other comparatively less powerful countries –such
as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, South Korea, Finland and others-
are grabbing whatever they can –farmland, forests, carbon
markets, cheap labour- in the spaces left unoccupied by the
former.
As peace expands over the
until recently war-torn continent, national and foreign governments
–from North and South- open up opportunities for access
to Africa’s natural resources by transnational corporations.
The key words being used to hide their true intentions –profits
and plunder- are poverty alleviation, job creation, healthcare,
education, development.
Within this context, the
Liberian Sustainable Development Institute (SDI) hosted on 27-29
April in Monrovia a very timely “International Conference
on Community Rights and Natural Resources”, organized
jointly with the Africa Community Rights Network and the World
Rainforest Movement.
The meeting brought together
35 community representatives from 9 Liberian counties, NGO delegates
from 10 African countries (Cameroon, Central African Republic,
Congo Brazzaville, Gabon, Ghana, Kenya, Liberia, Nigeria, Tanzania
and Togo), as well as participants from Brazil, Costa Rica,
Ecuador, Netherlands, United Kingdom and Uruguay.
The main issues addressed
at the meeting related to natural resource extraction and community
rights, focusing particularly on the forestry sector and including
industrial logging, large-scale tree plantations and forest-related
carbon markets (REDD).
In the case of Liberia,
the host organization (SDI) had recently alerted that “there
is convincing evidence that large-scale logging operations,
contrary to widespread expectations, neither alleviate poverty
nor create secure and decent jobs for forest communities. In
fact these operations have been found to exacerbate poverty
in forest communities, and in other instances they have played
a direct role in financing state and non-state actors involved
in violent conflicts.” (1)
In spite of the evidence,
the Liberian government is opening up a third of the country’s
forests –more than 1 million hectares- to industrial logging,
which has raised strong concerns among forest communities that
will be affected by those operations.
The situation was discussed
at the Monrovia meeting and after a fruitful exchange of experiences,
Liberian community representatives produced a statement (2)
explaining that although “the new forestry reform law
of Liberia provides for the consultation of local communities
and their free and informed participation in the decision making
processes of their forest resources … the processes leading
to the signing of social agreements between the communities
and concession holders did not take into account the informed
participation of affected communities…” The statement
added that “local communities have been repeatedly ignored
about decisions relating to the use of their forest resources”,
and that “contract holders and managers of forest resources
have consistently failed to respect community rights and ensure
fulfillment of community benefits…”
As a result, one of their
main demands was “that all social agreements signed between
affected communities and concession holders be renegotiated”.
On their part, the members
of the Africa Community Rights Network (ACRN) also released
a statement (3) calling for a number of urgent actions in the
region’s countries, among which the following:
– That Community Rights
(CR) should be the centre of natural resource governance and
management.
– That government ensure CR Laws are made and where such
law exist, fully implemented and the knowledge should be made
accessible to the communities.
– That governments ensure access to information on natural
resources management to interested parties, particularly to
affected communities.
– That community involvement should be based on free prior
informed consent.
– That governments ensure that women have equal rights
and access as well as equal participation in natural resources
management.
– That government ensures that fair prices should be paid
for natural resources exploitation in Africa.
The meeting also addressed
the issue of large scale tree plantations –rubber, oil
palm, eucalyptus- as well as that of the carbon market in general
and REDD in particular, regarding their possible impacts on
African local communities and on their rights. In this respects,
the community statement demanded “that more and direct
community consultations be held on emerging issues such as the
Voluntary Partnership Agreement, REDD, carbon trading, and large-scale
plantations”.
On its part, the ACRN statement
“noted the increasing amount of land being targeted for
large scale monoculture plantation in Africa over the last few
years” and expressed that “having noted the negative
impacts of large scale plantations we call for vigilance in
order to protect livelihood and environment.” At the same
time, they “noted that carbon trading will provide a perfect
excuse for northern and industrialized countries to escape their
responsibility to drastically reduce their carbon emissions”
and therefore rejected “carbon trading as means of financing
sustainable forest management.”
Both the community and ACRN
statements show the abysmal differences between community and
corporate approaches to natural resource extraction. While the
former focuses on community rights, the latter thinks in terms
of access to and appropriation of other people’s resources
for profit-making. While the former can ensure long term benefits
to forest communities, the latter results in increased poverty
and resource destruction. While the former can conserve forests,
the latter results in their degradation and substitution by
monoculture tree plantations.
In such context, the message
coming from the Africa Community Rights Network is loud and
clear: “Community Rights should be the centre of natural
resource governance and management.”
(1) Liberia – The
Promise Betrayed, January 2010
http://www.wrm.org.uy/countries/Liberia/Promise_Betrayed.pdf
(2) http://www.wrm.org.uy/countries/Liberia/Position_statement.html
(3)
http://www.wrm.org.uy/countries/Liberia/Africa_Community_Rights.html
WORLD
PEOPLE’S CONFERENCE: CLIMATE CHANGE AND RIGHTS OF MOTHER
EARTH
-
Following in the Footprints of Cochabamba
Several weeks have passed
since the World Peoples’ Conference on Climate Change
and the Rights of Mother Earth, convened by Bolivian President
Evo Morales. But in these times of fast-moving and disposable
news, we should make an effort to ensure that the crucial significance
of this meeting is not simply tossed on the junk news heap.
While it was underway, the
biggest media coverage given to the conference focused on the
indigenous president’s remarks about female hormones in
chickens, comments which were misinterpreted or perhaps poorly
expressed.
But beyond the brief coverage
attracted by these controversial remarks, there was very little
serious media analysis of what was in fact a major international
event, attended by more than 30,000 participants. Representatives
of campesino and indigenous communities, urban social organizations,
environmentalists, government officials, intellectuals and activists
gathered in Cochabamba – which gained renown ten years
ago as the main battleground of the “water war”
against privatisation of this essential natural resource –
and collectively built a platform for analysis of climate change.
Climate change, the threat
that looms over the entire planet while most of us are distracted
by other things. Climate change, an issue that the world’s
governments have been talking about for almost 20 years –
through the United Nations process of the Framework Convention
on Climate Change – while moving ever further from finding
real solutions to the problem, concentrating instead on the
consequences of this global disaster and looking for ways to
cope with and adapt to the effects. And making the problem worse.
In an era when corporations
are spreading to every corner of the planet appropriating every
possible resource in their search for profits (land, water,
oil, minerals, plants, genes, etc.), even the climate has become
a business. False solutions have been invented, “market-based”
solutions like “compensation”: those who emit huge
amounts of greenhouse gases, which cause climate change, pay
for others in the South to not produce emissions, and thus supposedly
“compensate” for their own emissions, instead of
reducing them.
A lot of money for a few
companies. Even a financial carbon market! And this is how the
process has continued, postponing responsibility for cutting
emissions. And then came December -the deadline for the world’s
countries to establish their emission reduction commitments-
when the process was exposed for what it is, and it was made
abundantly clear that the powerful nations are not willing to
do anything. A handful of countries, historically responsible
for the crisis, tried to impose a parody of an agreement that
they called the “Copenhagen Accord”. No obligations,
no responsibility for those who have created the emissions.
No change. And the worst prospects ever: a rise in temperature
of up to 4ºC which signifies disaster.
Cochabamba was the alternative.
Bolivia, which was one of the few countries that said NO to
this parody of an agreement, convened the World Conference of
the Peoples. And the people came, to call things by their name,
to give them other names than those used in official documents.
And so they talked about Mother Earth and her rights, about
“Living Well”, about Food Sovereignty as the people’s
right to control their own seeds, land, water and food production
in harmony with Mother Earth in order to have access to sufficient,
varied and nutritious foods. They talked about the climate debt
accrued by the so-called developed countries, about restorative
justice – in other words, not merely economic compensation
but also “the restitution of integrity to our Mother Earth
and all its beings” – and about creating an international
tribunal for trying crimes against the climate.
And the people talked about
the root of the problem: the CAUSES of climate change.
The Peoples’ Agreement
(1), the result of an intensive, pluralistic and diverse participatory
process encompassing 17 working groups, states that the cause
of climate change is the crisis of the capitalist system: “We
confront the terminal crisis of a civilizing model that is patriarchal
and based on the submission and destruction of human beings
and nature that accelerated since the industrial revolution.
The capitalist system has imposed on us a logic of competition,
progress and limitless growth. This regime of production and
consumption seeks profit without limits, separating human beings
from nature and imposing a logic of domination upon nature,
transforming everything into commodities: water, earth, the
human genome, ancestral cultures, biodiversity, justice, ethics,
the rights of peoples, and life itself.”
To address the problem,
it proposes “the recovery, revalorization, and strengthening
of the knowledge, wisdom, and ancestral practices of Indigenous
Peoples, which are affirmed in the thought and practices of
‘Living Well,’ recognizing Mother Earth as a living
being with which we have an indivisible, interdependent, complementary
and spiritual relationship."
“The model we support
is not a model of limitless and destructive development. All
countries need to produce the goods and services necessary to
satisfy the fundamental needs of their populations, but by no
means can they continue to follow the path of development that
has led the richest countries to have an ecological footprint
five times bigger than what the planet is able to support. Currently,
the regenerative capacity of the planet has been already exceeded
by more than 30 percent. If this pace of over-exploitation of
our Mother Earth continues, we will need two planets by the
year 2030.
“In an interdependent
system in which human beings are only one component, it is not
possible to recognize rights only to the human part without
provoking an imbalance in the system as a whole. To guarantee
human rights and to restore harmony with nature, it is necessary
to effectively recognize and apply the rights of Mother Earth.”
Polluters must accept their
responsibility. The Peoples’ Agreement calls on the developed
countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by at least
50%, and to genuinely reduce emissions, rather than using deceptive
strategies “that mask the failure of actual reductions
in greenhouse gas emissions,” such as carbon markets and
the new market mechanism known as REDD (Reducing Emissions from
Deforestation and Forest Degradation), aimed at incorporating
forests into the carbon market.
With regard to forests,
the Peoples’ Agreement categorically states: “The
definition of forests used in the negotiations of the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which includes
plantations, is unacceptable. Monoculture plantations
are not forests. Therefore, we require a definition
for negotiation purposes that recognizes the native forests,
jungles and the diverse ecosystems on Earth.”
Profit-driven industrial
agriculture carried out by and for agribusiness has fatally
wounded Mother Earth and her children, because it does not respect
the right to food and is one of the main causes of climate change.
The Peoples’ Agreement condemns agribusiness and its various
technological, trade-related and policy tools: free trade agreements,
intellectual property rights over life, dangerous technologies
such as transgenic crops, agrofuels, geo-engineering, nanotechnology
and others that serve as instruments of privatization and “only
serve to deepen the climate change crisis and increase hunger
in the world.”
Also present in Cochabamba
were the internal contradictions of a process of change that
is difficult to carry out within the broader context of savage
capitalism. Numerous organizations were convened by the National
Council of Ayllus and Markas of Qullasuyu (CONAMAQ), an indigenous
federation, to take part in an independent working group outside
the official conference structure, known as Working Group No.
18. Their purpose was to denounce the serious environmental
conflicts caused by extractive projects and infrastructure megaprojects
undertaken in the framework of the South American Regional Infrastructure
Integration (IIRSA) initiative which cross through indigenous
territories and fragile protected areas. At the end of their
discussions, the working group members called on the government
of Evo Morales to suspend all extractive activities and projects
that adversely affect the country’s indigenous peoples.
Despite contradictions like
these, Bolivia, with its indigenous pride restored, took the
first major step towards an active leading role for the peoples
in confronting the climate crisis. This step left a footprint.
Now it is up to us to follow in the steps of Cochabamba, until
our collective footprints become deep enough to forge a new
path.
By Raquel Núñez,
WRM, email: raquelnu@wrm.org.uy
(1) http://pwccc.wordpress.com/2010/04/24/peoples-agreement/#more-1584
-
A unified people’s agenda to combat climate change
By convening the World People’s
Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth,
the plurinational government of Bolivia set the stage for a
transcendental political event: social movements representing
an extraordinary range of sectors collectively formulated a
unified agenda of their own, with a radical stance towards climate
change – radical because it focused on the root of the
problem. This unity was also the result, undoubtedly, of the
maturation of a lengthy process of integration among diverse
social movements, in the search for strategies aimed at a genuine
solution not only to the problem of climate change, but also
to the various crises facing the world – the energy crisis,
food crisis, financial crisis, loss of biodiversity, etc. –
which merely serve to highlight a major structural crisis.
The People’s Agreement
of Cochabamba, the final declaration which summarizes the conclusions
reached by 17 working groups made up of anyone who chose to
register for and attend the conference, reaffirms that it is
not enough to discuss climate change “as a problem limited
to the rise in temperature;” the time has come to question
the cause.
In this regard, all of the
conclusions reached by the working groups concur with the position
that the People’s Agreement states in this way: “We
confront the terminal crisis of a civilizing model that is patriarchal
and based on the submission and destruction of human beings
and nature that accelerated since the industrial revolution.”
The capitalist system, with its logic of limitless growth, has
led the Earth’s regenerative capacity to be exceeded by
more than 30%, and if this current rate of over-exploitation
continues, the world will require the resources of two planets
by 2030, concluded the members of Working Group 2: “Harmony
with Nature to Live Well”.
For its part, Working Group
1 on “Structural Causes of Climate Change” stressed
that every alternative to the current capitalist model “must
lead to a profound transformation of civilization. Without this
profound transformation, it will not be possible to continue
life on planet Earth. Humanity is faced with a huge dilemma:
continue down the road of capitalism, patriarchy, Progress and
death, or embark on the path of harmony with nature and respect
for life.”
Harmony, integration, interdependence,
complementarity, equity and justice are concepts repeated throughout
the conclusions of the different working groups. The need to
preserve (for some), recover or find (for others) a tie of belonging
to nature, to Mother Earth, is a constant. Mother Earth is a
living being, with rights. In recognition of this, Working Group
3: “Mother Earth Rights” formulated a draft Universal
Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth. Article 1 defines
Mother Earth as a living being with inherent rights, which are
outlined in Article 2, while Article 3 of the declaration establishes
the obligations of human beings to Mother Earth.
This living Earth has sons
and daughters who have lived in harmony with her for thousands
of years. Their wisdom and spirituality are intrinsically linked
to Mother Earth, and they suffer the assaults against her in
the flesh. “The aggression towards Mother Earth and the
repeated assaults and violations against our soils, air, forests,
rivers, lakes, biodiversity, and the cosmos are assaults against
us. (…) Our territories are not respected, particularly
those of peoples in voluntary isolation or initial contact,
and we suffer the most terrible aggression since colonization
only to facilitate the entry of markets and extractive industries,”
declared the members of Working Group 7: “Indigenous Peoples”.
But in addition to denunciations
like these, the indigenous peoples also have a great deal to
contribute. They have their own knowledge, technologies and
ancestral wisdom that they propose to be incorporated into curricula
and teaching methods. And they have their concept of “Living
Well”, which Working Group 9: “Shared Vision”
describes as follows: “The shared vision is a world in
which all people ‘live well’ in harmony with Mother
Earth and other human beings. (…) The shared vision of
‘living well’ is of societies that respect the principles
of interdependency and responsibility and therefore practice
reciprocity, complementarity, solidarity, equity and live in
harmony with Mother Earth and each other. It is a global society
of peoples and social movements, who stand in solidarity to
change the system that is putting the planet in peril. This
change will come from revaluing traditional knowledge that respects
nature in all parts of the planet.”
But this change will also
come when those responsible for the problem honour their responsibilities.
In order to sufficiently stabilize greenhouse gas emissions
so as to limit the rise in global temperature to no more than
1%, the wealthy industrialized countries, who have colonized
the planet’s atmosphere, must effectively reduce their
own emissions, without the use of carbon markets. Working Group
10 on “The Kyoto Protocol and Emission Reduction Commitments”
stresses: “The emission reductions of developed countries
must be achieved domestically, without the use of carbon markets
or any other offsetting mechanisms that allows them to avoid
the adoption of real measures to reduce emissions.” The
group calls for a thorough review of the market mechanisms created
by the Kyoto Protocol itself, which have allowed the industrialized
countries of the North, who are primarily responsible for the
“slow death of Planet Earth,” to evade their real
obligations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
These countries, which account
for only 20% of the world’s population, “have appropriated
the Earth’s atmospheric space by emitting the vast majority
of historical greenhouse gas emissions,” thereby accumulating
a considerable climate debt. Working Group 8, which specifically
addressed the “Climate Debt”, underlined that honoring
this debt does not depend “merely on financial compensation,
but on restorative justice – on ‘making whole’
those people and members of the community of life on Earth.”
The group declares that the responsibility lies not only with
the industrialized countries of the North, but also transnational
corporations and financial speculators who “also bear
responsibility to compensate for the disasters that they provoked.”
Among other measures, the
group calls on the so-called “developed” countries
to fulfil their responsibilities by “altering their patterns
of life and development, immediately cancelling external debt,
stopping the production of armaments, shifting from fossil energy
to renewable energy, and changing the international financial,
economic and social systems that perpetuate the current patterns.”
Clearly absent from this
list are the false solutions offered by carbon market mechanisms,
which were condemned in the final conclusions of numerous working
groups. In particular, Working Group 15: “Dangers of the
Carbon Market” declares that the absolute failure of the
carbon market is undeniable, given that “greenhouse gases
emissions (GHG) have increased by 11.2% within developed countries
from 1990 to 2007.” In the meantime, the world has witnessed
a financial crisis which merely serves to prove that “the
market is unable to regulate the financial system which is fragile
and insecure due to speculation and the rise of intermediaries.”
This leads to an obvious conclusion: that “it would be
totally irresponsible to leave the very existence of humanity
and our Mother Earth under their care and protection.”
The carbon market working
group also rejected other false solutions, such as nuclear energy,
transgenic crops, geo-engineering, mega infrastructure projects,
agrofuels, and changes in land use that entail the destruction
of existing ecosystems for their replacement by large-scale
tree plantations of fast-growing alien specied (eucalyptus,
pine, acacia, etc.) that would purportedly serve as “carbon
sinks”. On this latter point, Working Group 14: “Forests”
is eminently clear: “Tree plantations under CDM (Clean
Development Mechanism) within the Kyoto Protocol framework are
a false solution that threatens native forests and jungles and
violates Peoples’ rights. Plantations for carbon credits
as well as for agrofuels are a false solution to climate change.”
The same group forcefully spoke out against the attempt to incorporate
forests into the carbon market: “We condemn neoliberal
market mechanisms such as the REDD (Reducing Emissions from
Deforestation and forest Degradation) mechanism and its + and
++ versions, which are violating our Peoples’ sovereignty
and right to free, prior and informed consent; as well as the
sovereignty of national States. This mechanism is violating
the rights, uses, and customs of the Peoples and the Rights
of Nature.”
It continues, “We
demand instead that contaminating countries acknowledge their
historical ecological and climate debt, and transfer financial
and technological resources directly to the Peoples, nations
and ancestral indigenous, aborigine, and peasant organic structures
so they can restore and maintain forests and jungles. Thus can
real funding of plans for a comprehensive life and for living
well be ensured with direct compensation, in addition to the
funding committed by developed countries, outside the carbon
market, and never used as offsets of the carbon market.”
“The future of humanity
is in danger,” the People’s Agreement concludes,
“and we cannot allow a group of leaders from developed
countries to decide for all countries as they tried unsuccessfully
to do at the Conference of the Parties in Copenhagen. This decision
concerns us all. Thus, it is essential to carry out a global
referendum or popular consultation on climate change in which
all are consulted regarding the following issues: the level
of emission reductions on the part of developed countries and
transnational corporations, financing to be offered by developed
countries, the creation of an International Climate Justice
Tribunal, the need for a Universal Declaration of the Rights
of Mother Earth, and the need to change the current capitalist
system.”
With this agenda as a foundation,
social movements can continue building a genuine solution to
the climate change problem and an alternative to the system
that has given rise to it.
The documents cited are
available at the official People’s Conference website:
http://pwccc.wordpress.com/
By Raquel Núñez,
WRM, email: raquelnu@wrm.org.uy
-
Women and climate change in Cochabamba
An analysis of Peoples’
Agreement (1) that emerged from the World People’s Conference
on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth, held from
20 to 22 April in Cochabamba (Bolivia) may lead us to think
that the gender issue was not present at that Conference.
Although in general terms
it may be true that a gender perspective was not substantially
incorporated into the conclusions of the working groups, gender
language can be found in some of the texts. For example, group
6 on migrations specifies that it is women who suffer the most
serious situations arising from migration; group 7 on indigenous
peoples, calls for the full and effective participation of vulnerable
groups, including women; group 8 on climate debt mentions women
twice in connection with vulnerable groups; group 12 on funding
appeals for women to have representation in the new funding
mechanism that should be set up to take on the costs of climate
change; and group 14 on forests asks for recognition of the
role of women in the preservation of cultures and the conservation
of native forests and jungles and proposes the establishment
of an expert group with representation of at least 50% by women.
(1)
However, it would not be
fair to assess the influence of feminist and women’s groups
solely based on the conference texts and not consider the important
contributions made alongside the working groups that prepared
the final document. Here are some examples:
The Feminist Working group
from Global Call to Action against Poverty (GCAP) made a presentation
at a workshop, showing the conclusions of the tribunals on gender
and climate change held in seven countries of Africa, Asia and
Latin America. The presentation included an analysis of the
differentiated gender impacts caused by climate change, among
which, the lack of access to drinking water and water for agriculture,
impact on food sovereignty and greater dependence on the economy
and the market, prolonged droughts and heavy unseasonal rain
and the loss of the ability to produce natural medicines due
to reduced availability of the appropriate plants. This activity
was positively assessed by the participants as it introduced
a relevant but scantly addressed issue at the conference. However,
perhaps the most important input of this group was related to
the role of education in the generation of changes in production
and excessive consumption patterns that are the true causes
of climate change. (2)
The event organized by the
Latin American Network of Women Transforming the Economy (Red
Latinoamericana de Mujeres Transformando la Economía - REMTE)
made important inputs regarding “the structural causes of climate
change and the challenges of an economy for life,” an approach
in which the proposals of “Living Well” (Buen Vivir), the visions
and practices of ancestral community economy, of feminist economy
and of ecological economy all converge. In a very brief summary,
they state that “what matters is to move towards an economy
that promotes a broader reproduction of life instead of the
reproduction of capital.”
Along the same lines, during
the Assembly of Social Movements that took place during the
conference, women’s struggles did not go by unnoticed. In the
Letter made public, it is stated that “resistance [to the climate
crisis assessed as part of the global crisis] is being built
up from the interrelation of diverse anti-capitalist, anti-patriarchal,
anti-colonial and anti-racist approaches”... and that in the
“process of articulation under permanent construction” one of
the “key moments” will be the Third International Action of
the World March of Women to take place in Congo next October.(3)
For their part, the Latin
American representatives of Gender CC - Women for Climate Justice,
made an analysis of the gender impacts of climate change in
Bolivian and Colombian communities. Perhaps their most important
contribution was the analysis of the impact on women of the
false solutions to climate change proposed so far. These false
solutions include, among others, increased monoculture tree
plantations for agrofuels and carbon sinks and major hydroelectric
dams promoted as supposedly clean energy sources. They are false
solutions because, from the standpoint of climate they do not
attack the true causes and, what is even worse, they will not
only aggravate injustices towards the poorest communities but
also, as has already been proven, they worsen the lives of women
in particular. (4)
The Latin American Feminist
Community group, the voice of feminist social movements and
organizations, also made a substantial input, making public
a Pronouncement that arose from a document presented at one
of the workshops. This document was discussed during the workshop
and later the discussion was continued in an open space, where
it received contributions from indigenous and other women from
different countries. The Pronouncement analyzes in detail the
concepts of Pachamama (Mother Earth), community, reciprocity,
autonomy and climate change. As it is a lengthy document we
will only refer to some points related to climate change which
we believe to be of substance. (5)
Regarding climate change,
the pronouncement explains that “it is the consequence of human
activity, of human excesses, conceived in the framework of a
predatory development model that is sustained by the consumption
of fossil fuels and through deforestation and violation of nature
in order to increase cement cities. A capitalist and patriarchal
system, where everything is a commodity, where everything can
become private property and have a price on it, and where any
consequence of human activity can be repaired or modified by
science and technology. It is the result of a system that …
has undermined the basic necessary conditions for perpetuating
life in a harmonious cosmos, for us the Pachamama (Mother Earth).”
One of the indigenous members
of the movement explained that for them, patriarchy is a system
of oppression of which its offspring, such as colonialism and
neo-liberalism, are just different ways of plundering life,
where the latter is the one that most cynically plunders the
Pachamama. For this reason she added, it is not the indigenous
peoples who are going to save the planet, because the men and
women of the indigenous peoples are also patriarchal and it
is patriarchy that is destroying life. This is the reason for
the need of a Pronouncement by Community Feminism, because our
struggle is for our dreams.
Regarding the effects of
climate change, the group ratified and agreed with the analysis
made by other groups that “they are different and more severe
for women because of their socially allocated role, where production,
feeding and looking after the family is central; bringing up
children and working outside the home, which does not imply
not doing so-called domestic chores. As a result, women are
more intensely affected by changes in the climate.”
The pronouncement rejects
the fact that the same patriarchal rationale that inequitably
allocates roles and tasks to sustain society is used to face
climate change. Those responsible for it, the self-denominated
developed countries have plundered, contaminated and forced
the Pachamama. Their industries, elites and corporations are
attempting to compensate and put a price on destruction. Regarding
this, the pronouncement emphatically concludes: “From this community
feminist viewpoint we reiterate that we do not want money in
exchange for the damage caused to the Pachamama or to women.
To accept money would be like a time bomb, it would mean that
they will continue exploiting and paying for this exploitation.
We want restitution of rights. The damage caused can no longer
be repaired, but the Pachamama’s rights can be restored and
for this patriarchy must be dismantled, including its states,
its armies, its transnational corporations, its hierarchical
rationale and all the violence this means to women and to the
Pachamama. We will not accept either that we women are made
responsible for the plundering, what we have before us, men
and women, is a community task. That is to say a task for all
of us.”
Women spoke out clearly
in Cochabamba. The enormous task of disseminating these contributions
and their true inclusion on the agenda of social movements struggling
for change still remains.
By Ana Filippini, Latin
American Focal Point of the international network Women for
Climate Justice, Gender CC, email: mujeresporjusticiaclimatica@gmail.com
(1) The full texts can be
found on the Conference’s webpage e: http://cmpcc.org/
(2) See details of the conference and the presentation in the
text distributed by Ana Agostino available at: http://www.icae2.org/files/349c.pdf
(3) Full text of the Letter in Spanish available at: http://www.wrm.org.uy/actores/CCC/CMPCC/Movimientos_Sociales.html
(4) Full texts and power point presentations in Spanish available
on the webpage of Gender cc: http://www.gendercc.net/
(5) The full document in Spanish is available at: http://www.kaosenlared.net/noticia/pronunciamiento-feminismo-comunitario-latinoamericano-conferencia-pueb
-
Eduardo Galeano, present at Cochabamba
Letter from Uruguayan
writer Eduardo Galeano, read at the opening ceremony of the
World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights
of Mother Earth:
The World People’s
Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth
starts today in Cochabamba, Bolivia, convened by Bolivia’s
President Evo Morales.
Unfortunately, I shall not
be able to be with you. Something has come up that prevents
me from traveling. But I’d like to be, in some way, part
of this meeting of yours, this meeting of mine, since I have
no choice but to do the little that I can rather than the much
that I want to do.
And, to be there without
being there, at least I am sending these words.
I’d like to say to
you: may all that is possible, and impossible too, be done,
so that the Summit of the Mother Earth will be the first step
toward the collective expression of the peoples who do not lead,
but suffer from, global politics.
I hope that we will be able
to advance these two initiatives of compañero Evo’s,
the Climate Justice Tribunal and the Global Referendum against
a system of power founded on war and waste, which holds human
life in contempt and hangs an auction flag over our earthly
goods.
I hope that we will be able
to speak little and do a lot. Serious damage has been done,
and is being done, to us by discursive inflation, which in Latin
America is more dangerous than monetary inflation. Besides,
we are, above all, fed up with the hypocrisy of rich countries,
which are leaving us without a habitable planet while making
pompous speeches to cover up their heist.
Some say that hypocrisy
is the tribute that vice pays virtue. Others say that hypocrisy
is the only proof of the existence of the infinite. And the
logorrhea of the so-called ‘international community,’
the club of bankers and warriors, does prove that these two
definitions are correct.
I’d like to celebrate,
in contrast, the force of truth that radiates from the words
and silences born in the human communion with nature. And it
is no accident that this Mother Earth Summit is being held in
Bolivia, this nation of nations, which is discovering itself
after two centuries of living a lie.
Bolivia has just celebrated
the tenth anniversary of the people’s victory in the war
of water, won by the people of Cochabamba, who were capable
of defeating an all-powerful corporation from California, the
owner of the water of Bolivia thanks to a government which claimed
to be Bolivian but was very generous to other people.
This water war was one of
the battles which this land keeps fighting in defense of its
natural resources — in other words, in defense of its
identity with nature.
There are voices from the
past that speak to the future.
Bolivia is one of the American
nations where indigenous cultures have managed to survive, and
their voices are now ringing with more force than ever before,
despite the scorn and persecution they suffered for a long time.
The entire world, stunned
as it is, is wandering about like a blind man in the middle
of a crossfire, having to listen to those voices. They teach
us that we, tiny beings called humans, are part of nature, relatives
to all those who have legs, paws, wings, or roots. The European
conquest condemned the indigenous, who lived in that communion
with nature, for idolatry, and for believing in that communion
they were flogged, their throats were slit, or they were burned
alive.
From the times of the European
Renaissance, nature has been turned into a commodity or an obstacle
to human progress. And, to this day, this divorce between us
and her has persisted, so much so that there still are people
of good will who are moved by poor nature, so abused, so wounded,
but are seeing her only from outside.
Indigenous cultures see
her from inside. Seeing her, I see myself. What is done against
her is done against me. In her I find myself, my legs are also
the road on which they walk.
Let us celebrate, then,
this Summit of the Mother Earth. And may the deaf listen: the
rights of human beings and the rights of nature are two names
of the same dignity.
With hugs sent on wings,
from Montevideo.
Eduardo Galeano, 21 April,
2010
COMMUNITIES
AND FORESTS
-
Brazil: The double role of Norway in conserving and destroying
the Amazon
Norway is a major donor
of the Amazon Fund, the Brazilian Development Bank’s fund
that receives donations from governments, multilateral institutions,
big NGOs and companies to fund forest conservation projects
with the alleged aim of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases
resulting from deforestation. The contribution of donors is
recognised with diplomas that are nominal, non-transferable
and do not imply equity rights or carbon credits to offset.
In clear contradiction with
the above, the Norwegian government is investing in bauxite
mining and aluminium production in the same Amazon forest it
claims to protect. Norwegian state-owned company Norsk Hydro
ASA -Europe’s third largest aluminium maker- has recently
signed an agreement to take over Vale do Rio Doce’s aluminium
businesses in Brazil.
The agreement implies –among
other things- that Norsk Hydro will take control of Brazil’s
Paragominas, one of the largest bauxite mines in the world,
and gain 91 percent ownership in Alunorte, the world’s
largest alumina refinery. At the same time it will get 51 percent
in the Albras aluminium plant and 81 percent ownership in the
CAP alumina refinery project. (1)
The Norwegian government
cannot ignore that bauxite mining, its refining into alumina
and smelting to make aluminum metal are highly destructive processes,
including deforestation, contamination, displacement of local
communities and severe impacts on livelihoods and health. At
the same time, some of those processes –particularly deforestation-
are significant contributors to global warming. Additionally,
it is a well known fact that aluminium smelting is a highly
energy-intensive process, with electricity representing about
20% to 40% of the cost of producing aluminium.
That implies the need for
vast amounts of cheap energy. Norsk Hydro and the Norwegian
government know perfectly well that in Brazil such energy can
only come from large-scale hydroelectric dams.
Those types of massive dams
have been and are being built in the Amazon region and it comes
as no surprise that the Brazilian government has recently approved
the controversial Belo Monte dam, aimed at feeding industrial
processes such as aluminium with the low cost energy they require.
With an estimated cost of
over US$ 16 billion, the Belo Monte massive dam project on the
river Xingu would flood 516 sq km of forest land though estimations
say that all in all 1,522 sq km would be affected, leading to
the displacement of some 20,000–40,000 people.
Belo Monte would be the
third largest dam in the world and most of the funding would
come mainly from the Brazilian government’s financing
(as much as 80%) through public funds (public pension funds
and money from the National Treasury) (2). It is important to
highlight that 25% of all electricity in Brazil is consumed
by nine mining and energy companies -Alcoa, ArcelorMittal, Camargo
Corrêa Energia, CSN, Gerdau, Samarco, Vale do Rio Doce
and Votorantim- and that some of these same companies want the
Belo Monte dam for expanding their extractive operations.
Quoting International River’s
factsheet on the Project: “Belo Monte is being proposed
as a renewable energy project and an important part of the country’s
commitment to reduce emissions by 38% by 2020. Yet reservoirs
in tropical forests like the Amazon can themselves be significant
sources of greenhouse gas emissions due to decomposing vegetation.
According to Philip Fearnside, Brazil’s foremost expert
on reservoir emissions, Belo Monte is unlikely to be a standalone
project due to its low generating capacity in the dry season.
Fearnside therefore assumes that the Barbaquara Dam –
a much larger storage dam – will be built upstream. According
to Fearnside, during the first 10 years of operation, the Barbaquara
and Belo Monte dams combined would have emissions four times
higher than an equivalent fossilfuel plant.”
Such a massive flooding
would bring about the displacement of thousands of local people
whose lands and livelihoods would be lost forever. Up and downstream
impacts of the dam would also have heavy impacts on local populations
who might have to migrate in search of work, competing for few
low-payed jobs in outside towns and villages.
The indigenous peoples of
the Xingu have for many years been leading a strong campaign
in defense of their river and lands: “We have already
suffered many invasions and threats. When the Portuguese came
to Brazil, we indigenous people were already here, and many
died, many lost their enormous vast territories, we lost many
of the rights that we had, many lost parts of their culture,
and other tribes disappeared completely. The forest is our butcher
shop, the river is our market. We do not want the rivers
of the Xingú to be invaded, and our villages and children
to be threatened, children who will grow with our culture”,
stated Cacique Bet Kamati Kayapó and Cacique Raoni Kayapó
Yakareti Juruna, representing 62 indigenous leaders of the Xingu
basin, in a declaration after the Belo Monte Dam Auction.
“We do not accept
the Belo Monte hydroelectric dam because we understand that
it will bring more destruction to our region. We are not thinking
only about the locale where they want to construct the dam,
but about all of the destruction the dam will bring in the future:
more corporations, more ranches, more land invasions, more conflicts,
and even more dams. If the white man continues to carry
on like this, everything will be destroyed very quickly.”
“The world must know what is happening here, they must
perceive how destroying forests and indigenous people destroys
the entire world. Because of this we do not want Belo
Monte.”
If the Norwegian government
is sincere about wanting to preserve the Amazon and avoid emissions
from deforestation it cannot engage in the large-scale industry
of aluminium production which is developed at the expense of
the Amazon and its forest dependent peoples. Otherwise, it must
say clearly that it is prioritising profits and business over
the Amazon. As is currently the case.
Article based on the videos
by Rebecca Sommer from the joint side event that took place
in April 2010, at the World's Peoples Conference on Climate
Change and Mother Earth Rights, in Cochabamba, Bolivia, Video
part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4Ll_eS5Jfw;
Video part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdn5kmsS4cs;
Video part 3:
http://www.youtube.com/user/SommerFilms#p/u/6/nFRDiMUzjxU;
and “Belo Monte. Massive Dam Project Str ikes at the Heart
of the Amazon”, International Rivers Network, http://www.internationalrivers.org/files/J4337_IRN_Factsheet_3.pdf
; “Indigenous Declaration After the Belo Monte Dam Auction”,
http://www.internationalrivers.org/en/xingu/indigenous-declaration-after-belo-monte-dam-auction
Data sources:
(1) Investor Village, “Norsk Hydro Buys Vale Aluminum
Units for $4.9 Billion”,
http://www.investorvillage.com/mbthread.asp?mb=4198&tid=8944803&showall=1;
(2) “Belo Monte's Public Finance: Red Hot & Risky”,
International Rivers, http://www.internationalrivers.org/en/blog/zachary-hurwitz/2010-5-19/belo-montes-public-finance-red-hot-risky
-
Guatemala: Don’t sell forests, water and the future for
oil!
Guatemala is facing
the possibility of an extension of contract 2-85 that is threatening
to expand and increase the oil frontier in one of its most important
natural areas, the Laguna del Tigre national park This is the
country’s biggest national park and the core area of the
Maya Biosphere Reserve, classified under that protection category
in 1990 because of its international ecological importance.
The Laguna del Tigre is
a wetland comprising over 300 tropical lagoons and ponds, slow
running rivers, flood zones, vast savannahs and forests. It
is a strategic area for biodiversity conservation and because
of its size, it still hosts various species that have disappeared
from other places, such as the jaguar, the tapir and the howling
monkey. It has the highest concentration of the Moreletti crocodile
in Guatemala and is one of the last nesting sites for the Scarlet
Macao, a seriously endangered species.
Current research reports
over 40 species of mammals, 188 species of migratory and resident
birds, 17 amphibians and 55 species of fish, but it is very
likely that further investigation would come up with a longer
list. Added to this natural wealth are two uncommon natural
systems of great importance, a bivalve reef in the waters of
the San Pedro River on the southern border of the national park
and a remnant of red mangrove forest at over one hundred kilometres
from the sea.
Within the national park
is the Laguna del Tigre biotope. This was included on the Ramsar
list of internationally important wetlands in 1990. Three years
later, due to the threat of oil exploitation and the changes
in land use, the government requested its inclusion on the Montreux
Record, which groups Ramsar sites that require special conservation
attention.
The process of destruction
of the Laguna del Tigre’s natural riches started with
the arrival of oil exploitation in the heart of this park. In
1985 the government signed a 25 year contract for oil exploitation,
which expires in August this year. In order to continue with
oil extraction and exploitation, at that time the Basic Resources
Company opened up a road crossing from the limits of the San
Pedro River to the Xan oilfield.
The oil company violated
an agreement signed with the National Council for Protected
Areas (Consejo Nacional de Áreas Protegidas –CONAP),
in which it promised to control access to the park. This resulted
in the establishment of human settlements (presently over 40),
forest destruction, cattle ranching, forest fires, timber and
flora and fauna trafficking in general and changes in land use.
The original exploiter of
contract 2-85 was Texaco. Following this it was operated for
a long time by the Bahamas based Basic Resources, a company
that only exists in Guatemala. Later it passed into the hands
of UPR and Anadarko Petroleum that then sold it to the French
company Perenco, presently exploiting the area. This company,
which also operates in other Latin American countries, is characterized
by entering into controversial places and situations.
As an example, it has the intention of building an oil pipeline
approximately 207 kilometres long crossing isolated indigenous
peoples’ territories in the Peruvian Amazon.
In spite of the fact that
it would seem that extension of contract 2-85 is illegal, government
officials publicly defend this violation that transgresses the
hydrocarbon law, which literally states in its article 12 that
in no case may contacts exceed a length of 25 years.
One of the false arguments
put forth by those defending extension of the contract -among
which the Ministry of Energy and Mines- is that the area is
totally destroyed and there is little to save. In spite of the
destruction, Laguna del Tigre is still alive and still has well
conserved ecosystems and water reserves of regional interest.
Extending the contract would condemn Laguna del Tigre to the
inevitable destruction and degradation of this ecosystem due
to the characteristic impacts inherent to oil extracting activities.
Those who would like to
join the campaign in defence of the Laguna del Tigre can visit
the webpage of the School for Ecologist Thought (Escuela de
Pensamiento Ecologista – SAVIA): http://www.saviaguate.org/
to send letters to the President requesting respect for the
law and not to extend contract 2-85. There is a video explaining
the case at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OG5nVdm4HbQ
By Carlos Salvatierra, SAVIA
Escuela de pensamiento ecologista, correo electrónico:
Salvatierraleal@gmail.com
COMMUNITIES
AND TREE MONOCULTURES
-
Kenya: The Forest Service to the rescue of eucalyptus
Concerns have been raised
in Kenya about the high water consumption of eucalyptus trees,
which in 2009 led the country’s Environment Minister,
John Michuki, to order the uprooting of eucalyptus trees from
wetlands and banned their planting along rivers and watersheds.
WRM welcomed this move and provided an overview on this issue
in WRM bulletin 147 (October 2009).
Within this context , we
were taken by surprise by a recent document produced by the
Kenya Forest Service, basically aimed at further promoting eucalyptus
plantations in the country (“A Guide to On-Farm Eucalyptus
Growing in Kenya”, December 2009. Available at http://www.wrm.org.uy/countries/Kenya/Eucalyptus_guidelines.pdf).
In words of Prof. Eric Koech
Chairman of the Kenya Forest Service Board (foreword to the
document), this Guide “has been developed as a result
of the increasing concern on the effect of the species on the
hydrological cycle.” He says that “there are claims
that the species consumes a lot of water resulting in decrease
and in some cases the drying of rivers, springs and lakes.”
He seems to subscribe to
those “claims” by stating that “generally,
planting of Eucalyptus is not recommended in water scarce areas,
riparian areas, wetlands and marshy areas.” Although he
does not say so explicitly, the obvious reason is that he knows
perfectly well that eucalyptus trees consume vast amounts of
water.
However, he goes on to add
that the public has “been made to believe that the tree
is responsible for the national drought conditions being felt
and have been discouraged from further planting of the species
and given a go ahead to uproot eucalypts wherever they are.”
To our knowledge, no-one has accused eucalyptus of causing a
drought. What the public knows through experience, is that in
a drought-prone country such as Kenya, planting eucalyptus trees
will only exacerbate the problem by depleting the little water
available for other uses.
His final words are enlightening
as to whom the Guide is aiming to support, when he says: “I
hope this document will assist the Eucalyptus tree growers nationally.”
We sincerely hope it doesn’t.
Most of the Guide is in
fact a conventional plantation forestry guide, explaining how
to obtain seeds, how to produce seedlings, how to prepare the
soil for planting, how to plant and how to manage the plantation
until harvest. Most of the rest is related to marketing eucalyptus
plantations’ products.
Regarding the issue of water
–which is what started the debate in Kenya- what the Guide
in fact does is to mislead the public. Given the importance
of this issue, we consider it necessary to include and comment
all the relevant quotes from the document.
In section 1.3.1 (“Eucalyptus
and water use”), the Guide explains that “a lot
of concern has been expressed on the effect of Eucalyptus spp
planting on the hydrological patterns with various claims that
their presence on the landscape is causing the drying up of
water sources, rivers and springs. These claims have not been
conclusively supported by scientific evidence.”
In spite of the above, the
Guide itself implicitly agrees that those claims are true by
recommending “Areas where Eucalyptus should not be planted”
(4.3.2), including:
i. Wetlands and marshy areas
ii. Riparian areas
a) Along rivers (reserve not less than 30 meters as stipulated
in the Survey Act Cap 299 of the Laws of Kenya. In addition
allow for an extra 20 meters to ensure that the trees do not
adversely interfere with the water source.)
b) Areas around lakes, ponds, swamps, estuary and any other
body of standing water.
iii. Irrigated farm lands.
iv. Areas with less than 400mm of rainfall.
v. In farms next to water sources, planting should be minimized
by inter-planting with indigenous tree species or in mosaic
plantations between indigenous trees with the latter occupying
a greater percentage or strip planting of eucalyptus with natural
vegetation.”
The obvious question is:
why should eucalyptus not be planted in those areas if there
is no scientific evidence to support the claim that the presence
of eucalyptus “is causing the drying up of water sources,
rivers and springs”? The answer is equally obvious: because
there is more than sufficient evidence regarding the impacts
of eucalyptus on water.
In support to the above,
it is interesting to note that in section 4.3.3 (“Areas
suitable for Eucalyptus planting), the Guide recommends planting
in “Water logged areas for purposes of draining the area”,
thus highlighting the role of eucalyptus trees in sucking up
vast amounts of water.
Much of the arguments provided
by the Guide on water use by eucalyptus are clearly aimed at
misleading the public, such as illustrated in the following
quote:
“However, studies
have established that Eucalypts exhibit high efficiency in water
use for biomass accumulation”, adding that “it has
been established that eucalyptus requires less water to produce
one (1) Kg of biomass than most crops”. The examples provided
by the Guide are the following:
“- Eucalyptus species
require on average 785 litres
- Cotton / coffee / bananas each require 3,200 litres
- Sunflower requires 2,400 litres
- Maize, potato and sorghum require 1,000 litres each”
The above is clearly aimed
at making the public believe that all those crops consume more
water than eucalyptus, which is in fact absolutely false. The
only thing that those figures prove (assuming they are true)
is that some plants need more or less water for producing 1
kilo of biomass, which is totally irrelevant to the discussion
about the impacts of eucalyptus on water. What was really needed
were figures on how much water is consumed by each of those
crops per hectare/year. And those figures were not provided
by the authors of the Guide.
The real debate is not about
which crop is more “efficient” in producing biomass
from a litre of water but about the total amount of water used
by eucalyptus and on whether it depletes or not the water resources.
According to research from the Kenya-based International Centre
for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF), one single 3-year old
eucalyptus “drinks” 20 litres of water per day.
During the following years, consumption exponentially increases
and at age 20 the tree will “drink” 200 litres per
day. Using the lowest figure (20 litres), this means that one
single tree will consume 7300 litres of water per year and that
during that same time a typical plantation (1100 trees/hectare)
will consume 8,030,000 litres of water per hectare/year. Which
of course explains why eucalyptus is described in Kenya as the
“water guzzler”.
The Guide goes one step
beyond misleading the public, by saying something completely
untrue: “Comparisons of Eucalyptus species with other
forest plants demonstrate that eucalypts do not consume more
water than other native forest tree species as shown in the
Table 2.”
What Table 2 actually shows
is that eucalyptus consume much more water than the other three
species mentioned. According to the column “Water consumed
(litres/yr)”, Acacia auriculiformis consumes 1231.50 litres,
Albizzia lebbek 1283.90 litres, Dalbergia sissoo 1534.05 litres
and Eucalyptus hybrid 2526.35 litres. Which proves –contrary
to the above statement- that eucalypts do consume more water
than other native forest tree species.
In that context, the real
aim of table 2 is to try to hide the fact that eucalyptus consume
more water than other tree species by using the concept of “high
efficiency in water use for biomass accumulation”. Thus,
the final column provides figures proving that eucalyptus consume
less water per gram of biomass produced. Even
if one accepts that eucalyptus are “more efficient”
than other tree species in producing wood with the same amount
of water, this does not answer the real question: how much water
do eucalyptus use? And the answer –ignored by this Guide-
is provided by research carried out by ICRAF in Kenya itself:
between 20 and 200 litres of water per day during the whole
year.
Regarding the impacts of
eucalyptus plantations on biodiversity, the 27-page Guide (plus
annexes), only dedicates one paragraph to this important issue
(“1.3.2 Eucalyptus and bio-diversity conservation”).
The paragraph says:
“The greatest positive
contribution of eucalyptus is perhaps in replacing indigenous
species for fuel-wood, thereby preventing further degradation
of natural forests. Although it is claimed that there is limited
biodiversity in eucalyptus plantations, their cultivation saves
biodiversity elsewhere by preventing the destruction of natural
forests. Furthermore, certain Eucalyptus species, by quickly
producing firewood, would eliminate the causes which frequently
may have led to land degradation and desertification.”
And that is all!
One would have assumed that
a “A Guide to On-Farm Eucalyptus Growing” would
have at least included some simple guidelines on biodiversity
conservation –flora and fauna- in plantation areas (biological
corridors, measures for protecting threatened species, plantation
of native species, etc.). However, the Guide only subscribes
to the questioned concept that “plantations alleviate
pressure on native forests”, giving a green light to biodiversity
destruction by monoculture plantations of alien species in non
forested areas.
Finally, the Guide includes
two paragraphs on another crucial issue: “Eucalyptus and
soil fertility” (1.3.3).
The Guide starts by saying
that “when eucalyptus is grown as a short rotation crop
for high biomass production and removal, soil nutrients are
depleted rapidly which conforms to conventional scientific argument.”
Good start indeed, but obviously not very useful for promoting
eucalyptus plantations.
The Guide therefore adds
the following very confusing arguments: “However, areas
under eucalyptus have been found [emphasis
added] to have higher levels of micronutrients [and what about
macronutrients?] compared to areas under crops such
as tea [emphasis added] of similar age. Long
term planting of eucalyptus has been reported [emphasis
added] to improve soil fertility while comparative studies of
soils under eucalyptus and adjacent grassland have found no
significant differences if the trees have a rotation
of more than 10 years.” [emphasis added]
The second paragraph proves
nothing but gives the message that eucalyptus are useful in
soil conservation: “Studies have indicated
[emphasis added] that on degraded hillsides and wastelands,
the net soil contribution of eucalyptus through litter fall
is likely [emphasis added] to be positive.
Eucalypts also exhibit good potential [emphasis
added] for topsoil retention on degraded hillsides.”
In spite of all those confusing
arguments aimed at supporting eucalyptus plantations, the fact
is that in Kenya “eucalyptus is grown as a short rotation
crop for high biomass production and removal” and therefore
–as the Guide says- soil nutrients will be rapidly depleted.
In sum, there is nothing
in the Guide proving that “if the prescriptions contained
within this Guide are observed then the negative environmental
impacts will be minimized.” The expansion of eucalyptus
plantations will result in further water depletion, biodiversity
destruction and soil degradation.
There are alternatives to
eucalyptus in Kenya, such as several native tree species that
conserve water and that can provide multiple benefits –including
fuelwood- to people and the economy. Knowledge about those trees
exists and ICRAF is there to provide it. What is needed is the
political will to promote –as ICRAF suggests- the planting
of trees in integrated “tree-crop” systems, in which
agriculture and forestry are practised on a single piece of
land.
In the meantime, it would
be very useful to have “A Guide to On-Farm Growing of
Native Trees”. Would the Forest Service be willing to
produce such a Guide?
By Ricardo Carrere, WRM
International Coordinator
-
The Pulp Invasion continues: Companies linked to Asia Pulp and
Paper setting up in Vietnam
Asia Pulp and Paper (APP)
is one of the most controversial and destructive paper companies
on the planet. The company has cleared vast areas of rainforest
to feed its two million tonnes-a-year pulp mill in Sumatra,
Indonesia.
APP is constantly expanding.
In September 2007, Vietnam Investment Review reported that APP
was considering building a two million tonnes-a-year pulp mill
in Vietnam. While this plan has so far not progressed, APP seems
to be moving into Vietnam through a company called Green Elite.
Green Elite first appeared
in Cambodia in March 2004, when it started logging melaleuca
and mangrove forest inside the Botum Sokor National Park. Although
the 18,300 acacia plantation concession was illegal, since it
was inside a national park, the company managed to clear several
hundred hectares and started to build a wood chip mill.
Eventually the Ministry
of Environment threatened Green Elite with legal action for
US$1 million in damages and reparations. While the lawsuit was
subsequently dropped, it did at least get Green Elite out of
the national park.
Green Elite appears to have
close links to Asia Pulp and Paper. In September 2004, the Cambodia
Daily reported that thousands of acacia seedlings had been imported
from Arara Abadi, which is part of the APP's parent company,
the Sinar Mas Group. The Cambodia Daily spoke to ex-employees
of Arara Abadi who were now working for Green Elite. One of
them, Frankie Ng, referred to Arara Abadi the “sister
company” of Green Elite.
Further confirmation of
a link between APP and Green Elite came in January 2005, when
Jeff Hayward of SmartWood wrote to NGOs in Phnom Penh. Hayward
explained that Smartwood “was asked by APP if we would
conduct an independent 3rd party evaluation of the concession
area in Botum Sakor for which the subsidiary company Green Elite
and management company Green Rich Group Ltd. intend to develop
into plantations.”
On 21 January 2005, APP
put out a statement denying any involvement: “Neither
APP China nor APP group have any ownership or interest in either
Green Elite or Green Rich. ” Which sounds very clear,
except that given the labyrinthine structure of the Sinar Mas
Group, the statement does not actually rule out a link between
APP and Green Elite.
Since its exploits in Cambodia,
Green Elite has moved across the border to Vietnam. On 30 May
2007, according to VietNamNet, Green Elite applied to the Nghe
An provincial authorities for permission to set up plantations.
Within a few days, the authorities awarded the company with
an investment certificate for 70,000 hectares of plantations.
A subsidiary of Green Elite, InnovGreen Nghe An, is to implement
the project.
The plantations in Nghe
An province are part of Hong Kong-based InnovGreen's plans to
plant a total of 349,000 hectares in six provinces in Vietnam.
The land would be leased to InnovGreen for a period of 50 years.
Although only a small area
of the total area has so far been planted, VietNamNet reports
that InnovGreen's plantations are already causing serious problems
for local communities.
Lo Van Tho, chairman of
Cam Muon commune, told VietNamNet that “we have received
no benefits from this firm and they have had no commitment or
contract with Cam Muon commune”. Yet 300 families in the
commune have handed over their land to InnovGreen. VietNamNet's
reporter visited Huoi May village, home to 39 families belonging
to the Kho Mu indigenous group. “Innov Green has taken
our land,” Vi Van Que, chief of the village's production
team, said. “If they don’t compensate us, we will
starve to death. That’s a fact; we are waiting for death!”
In Quang Ninh, VietNamNet
spoke to Tang A Tai in Ban Danh village. “If they lease
all the forest land here to grow eucalyptus, what will my family
do to live?” he asked.
La Van Vi, secretary of
the youth branch of Ha Lau commune, said that “Many things
will change in 50 years but one thing is sure: without forest
land, we will starve to death!”
Dong Sy Nguyen may seem
an unlikely person to protest against industrial tree plantations.
He is a retired Lieutenant General, former cabinet member and
member of Vietnam's Communist Party Politburo. From 1992 to
1998, General Nguyen was in charge of implementing Programme
327, which aimed to re-green Vietnam's barren hills. Unfortunately
the “re-greening” mainly consisted of eucalyptus
and acacia monocultures.
But in January 2010, General
Nguyen wrote to Vietnam's Prime Minister, Nguyen Tan Dung, expressing
his concern about the leasing of forest land to foreign investors.
On 10 March 2010, the Prime
Minister instructed local governments not to allow any further
such projects until the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development
(MARD) had completed its investigations into the issue.
In a fascinating interview
with VietNamNet, General Nguyen explains the core problem faced
by proponents of industrial tree plantations in Vietnam: the
land is already in use. “Some provinces said that they
leased land to foreigners because the land had been unused for
years,” Nguyen said. “It is irresponsible! When
I implemented Project 327, I saw clearly that our people always
need land.”
I couldn't have put it better
myself. But it remains to be seen whether the Vietnamese government
listens to InnovGreen's false promises of jobs and development
or to the voices of General Nguyen and local communities.
By Chris Lang, http://chrislang.org
A recent report, by Ernesto
Cavallo in Hanoi: “Farmers’ Forests and Crop Land
for Wood Pulp Factories? – The mean business practices
of InnovGreen in Vietnam” is available in English here:
http://bit.ly/btxBCQ, and
in Vietnamese here: http://bit.ly/br5T3N
-
Mozambique: Video and Publication on the expansion of tree plantations
The government of Mozambique
is in the process of expanding large-scale monocultures of alien,
fast-growing tree species, mainly eucalyptus, pine and teak
trees in the northern part of the country.
In November 2009, Winfridus
Overbeek, member of the Alert against the Green Desert Network
and Domingos Firmiano dos Santos, Afrobrazilian (quilombola)
community leader of Angelim and national leader of CONAQ (Coordenação
Nacional das Comunidades Quilombolas – National Coordination
of Afrobrazilian Communities), made a field visit to Mozambique.
Both activists, with a long
involvment in the struggle against tree monocultures in the
Brazilian state of Espírito Santo, exchanged experiences
with the affected communities about the impacts of monoculture
tree plantations.
National organizations involved
in the subject - UNAC (União Nacional de Camponeses -
National Peasant Union) in Mozambique, and UCA (União
dos Camponeses e Associações de Lichinga –
Union of Peasant and Associations of Lichinga) - received and
accompanied the Brazilian delegation and organized the visits
so they could have an insight of the current introduction and
expansion of tree monocultures in Mozambique (see WRM Bulletin
Nº 150).
As a result of the visit,
two tools were produced: a video and a publication. The video
“Ninguem come eucalipto. Em Moçambique também
não” (No one eats Eucalyptus. Neither in Mozambique)
is only available in Portuguese and can be downloaded at http://www.wrm.org.uy/ninguem_come_eucalipto.html
The publication “The
Expansion of Tree Monoculture in Niassa Province, Mozambique,
and its Impacts on Peasant Communities, A field report”,
by Winfridus Overbeek, makes a brief description of the introduction
and expansion of large-scale tree monocultures in Mozambique
and the different stages of implementation in Nampula, Zambézia,
Manica and Niassa provinces.
Niassa, the largest province
in Mozambique, has been targeted by the Mozambican government
to orient there some of the companies and investors interested
in pine and eucalyptus plantations which intend to plant several
hundred thousand hectares. The publication gives a deeper insight
of the situation in Niassa including the potential area of tree
plantations, the investors, as well as the potential development
of CDM (Clean Development Mechanism) projects by companies from
industrialized countries in the northern hemisphere which would
use tree plantations to ‘offset’ their CO2 emission
at home.
The publication can be accesed
at http://www.wrm.org.uy/countries/Mozambique/book.pdf
-
World Bank: No more funding for oil palm plantations!
In August 2009, the International
Finance Corporation (IFC), and shortly thereafter the wider
World Bank Group (WBG) of which it is part suspended finance
for the palm oil sector. This was done in response to critical
complaints by Indonesian NGOs and indigenous peoples’
organizations and international NGOs which triggered a damning
audit report by the IFC’s own Compliance Advisory Ombudsman.
However, the Bank appears
to be determined to continue funding oil palm expansion in Africa,
Asia and Latin America and has launched what it defines as “an
open and participatory process, engaging a diverse group of
stakeholders” for developing a strategy for “future
engagement in the palm oil sector”.
As part of that process,
the Bank has organized several consultations: Washington (April
23-26), Indonesia (May 3-7), Costa Rica, (May 17-18), Ghana
(31 May-1 June) and The Netherlands (3-4 June).
Once this process has been
completed, the Bank will “take note” of the diverse
views expressed by a wide range of “stakeholders”
and will come up with a strategy that will allow it to continue
funding the expansion of this very controversial crop.
In response, several social
and environmental groups, which have been denouncing the greenwashing
of oil palm plantations, launched an action. On May 18th 2010,
a letter was sent to the World Bank on behalf of over 80 organizations
from more than 34 countries urging the World Bank to stop funding
oil palm plantations.
The letter stresses that
“The evidence provided by the documented environmental
and social harm caused by industrial oil palm plantations, makes
it necessary to insist that those plantations are part of a
model of large-scale extractivist production aimed at export,
which is inherently unsustainable”. As a result, the letter
concludes that “What is therefore needed is to stop the
expansion of oil palm monocultures” and that “The
World Bank must not finance oil palm plantations.”
The letter can be accessed
at:
http://www.wrm.org.uy/actors/WB/Letter_2010.html
If you wish to express you support to this letter, send an email
to: unsustainablepalmoil@gmail.com
You can also do that by entering the following web page:
http://www.salvalaselva.org/
