|
|
WRM Bulletin
|
|
OUR VIEWPOINT - Our expectations for the Climate Change Convention's COP6 The sixth Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Climate Change will take place in November in The Hague, The Netherlands. The public at large, increasingly concerned over the present and future effects of climate change, may well expect as a matter of course that their governments will have the good sense to take constructive action to solve the problem. Among those of us who have been participating in this international process, however, expectations are somewhat different. The fact is that this Convention appears to be going in the wrong direction and many of those participating seem to be quite happy about that. It has in fact become a negotiation more concerned with how much money each country thinks it might save or grab in the short term that about finding true solutions to a real problem. To cut or not to cut emissions? Amazingly enough, that does not seem to be the question. For all it seems quite clear that cutting emissions is a need. However, most of the major emitters and oil-producing countries are trying to find ways to avoid doing what they know needs to be done, telling themselves that this will somehow save them money. The promise of short-term money is also increasingly a factor for many Southern delegations. Three years ago, prior to the Kyoto climate meeting in 1997, one African climate-change negotiator angrily told a Northern-country representative that "our countries are not toilets for your emissions!" Yet today, many Southern countries are going out of their way actually to offer themselves as such "toilets" in order to gain a few dollars, renting or selling their countries' lands and forests to act as supposed carbon sinks for the emissions that Northern countries will continue sending to the atmosphere. The fact that this particular sewage system won't work, and that the resulting climate change is having increasingly serious effects on their people, ecosystems and economies, is seldom mentioned. The upshot is that the current round of climate negotiations are focused on carbon sinks and not on carbon emissions reductions, equal rights to the atmosphere, and the adoption of clean, renewable and low-impact energy -- which is what they should be about. Government delegates bewitched by false economics, not surprisingly, are backed by many businesses. The Climate Convention has the peculiarity of having a number of active participants lobbying under the name "Business NGOs". Believe it or not, the room they occupy even bears that name. Among others, the nuclear "business community" is active in the talks, trying to sell its "clean" energy to save the planet. More unexpectedly, even some environmental NGOs appear to be playing the carbon sinks game and are willing to receive carbon money for forest conservation and rehabilitation. On the positive side, there is a large representation of NGOs and indigenous peoples organizations trying to make governments change course in The Hague. This could well come to pass if people in all countries of the world were to put sufficient pressure on their governments and on the conference delegates. That means making people aware of what's happening, organizing pressure on governments and bringing that pressure to bear at The Hague. Without that pressure, it is all too clear what the outcome in November will be.
VOICES FOR CHANGING COURSE What follows are quotes selected from NGO and IPO positions related to the upcoming November meeting of the Climate Change Convention. The quotes do not pretend to reflect the full documents and are only intended to bring these positions to the attention of our readers and to facilitate access to them. Our intrinsic relation with Mother Earth obliges us to oppose the inclusion of sinks in the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) because it reduces our sacred land and territories to mere carbon sequestration which is contrary to our cosmovision and philosophy of life. Sinks in the CDM would constitute a worldwide strategy for expropriating our lands and territories and violating our fundamental rights that would culminate in a new form of colonialism. Sinks in the CDM would not help to reduce GHG emissions, rather it would provide industrialized countries with a ploy to avoid reducing their emissions at source. The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) established by the Kyoto Protocol offers both negative and positive possibilities. The CDM will not be a solution to global warming if it diffuses or obfuscates the responsibility of industrialized countries to reduce their GHG. It must not be used to allow Annex I countries to continue poisoning the environment. Sinks in the CDM pose the threat of invasion and loss of our land and territories by establishing new regimes for protected areas and privatization. We emphatically oppose the inclusion of sinks, plantations, nuclear power, megahydroelectric and coal. Furthermore, we oppose the development of a carbon market that would broaden the scope of globalization. However, we do support the Positive List including the development of alternative energies that foster sustainable development. Indigenous Peoples demand that the principles of transparency, prior informed consultation and consent, independent third party verification and monitoring, benefit sharing, risk reduction, appeals mechanism and compensation be guaranteed. Furthermore, we emphasize the need for these principles to be applied in culturally and linguistically appropriate manners. The full text can be accessed at: http://www.wrm.org.uy/english/IPlyon.htm
- FERN: Stop climate negotiators from bargaining away forests for their carbon content! With just five weeks to go before climate negotiators flock to The Hague to hammer out the implementing rules of the Kyoto Protocol, forests are more and more in danger of being reduced to a single commodity --carbon-- to be traded away under the Kyoto Protocol’s so called "Flexible Mechanisms". The resulting "Kyoto forests" are likely to be tree plantations --supposedly a substitute for reducing carbon emissions-- and the implications of these for forests, forest peoples, biodiversity and sustainable development could be grave. Gaining credits for the natural ability of forests and soils to temporarily fix carbon, instead of addressing greenhouse gas emissions at home will mean that the North can continue to get away with using more than its fair share of the world’s natural resources --by claiming (supposedly degraded) lands in the South to make up for it’s exorbitant resource use. So, the North goes on polluting and people in the South pay --these countries are often hit hardest by severe weather events (remember Hurricane Mitch, the recent flooding in Vietnam?). What’s more, land already under heavy pressure from conflicting uses is now being committed to Northern energy companies searching cheap land for their "carbon offset" projects. Carbon sinks will thus lead to a new form of colonialism, which passes onto the South responsibility for the past decades of inequitable resource use by the North. Gaining credits to fix carbon instead of addressing greenhouse gas emissions will also delay the inevitable switch towards renewable energy sources. The full text can be accessed at: http://www.wrm.org.uy/english/Luxemburg.htm
The following declaration, endorsed by an international group of concerned organizations from the South and the North for COP6, stresses the need for an effective and fair agreement to protect the global climate and among other issues, expresses that: - cuts in emissions can and should be made by industrialised countries as agreed in Rio in 1992 - cutting emissions will bring about the innovation needed for sustainable development in North and South - no citizen has a right to pollute more than any other - past, current and future emissions from industrialised countries have, do and will exceed for an unknown period their fair share by far and that this is unfair. We therefore call on the Governments of the world to correct this inequity by implementing the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol so that: - mechanisms are developed whereby those who emit above their fair share provide adequate resources to developing countries vulnerable to the impacts of climate change for both disaster preparedness and disaster relief and rehabilitation - the overwhelming majority of emission reductions are made in the high per capita polluting countries (domestic action first) - other environmental and social problems are prevented by a clear focus of the Protocol’s flexible mechanisms on renewable energy and energy efficiency projects. The full text can be accessed at: http://www.wrm.org.uy/english/mandate.htm
- Friends of the Earth. "Avoiding action: serious dangers for the global climate" To avoid real action at CO2 producing economies at home, the industrialised countries have come up with other ideas on how to decrease global CO2, e.g. by reducing CO2 elsewhere or declaring forests as 'carbon sinks' to reduce CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. 'Carbon sinks' reduce CO2 not by cutting emissions but by soaking it up: Grow a big forest and get rid of tons of carbon bound in the trees. But this CO2 could anytime be released again if the trees are burnt or cut down. Even worse, naturally grown forests, rich in biodiversity, might be replaced by monoculture plantations, which appear to be more effective in soaking up CO2. However, planting trees rather than reducing emissions from fossil fuels will not save the global climate. For one thing, it is scientifically proven that the biosphere cannot store all the carbon we could release, which is currently underground in the form of oil, gas and coal ("saturation"). Also, there are huge uncertainties and accounting problems involved with the use of sinks to meet the targets. And if, as science indicates, forests globally will become sources of greenhouse gases rather than sinks --how can we be sure that a forest project will actually reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere in the long run? Planting trees is also not necessarily environmentally friendly: a monoculture plantation soaks up much more carbon than an old-growth forest but might destroy biodiversity. In the long term, we cannot rely on trees and soil to soak up carbon, but we must stop burning fossil fuels. The full text can be accessed at: http://www.foeeurope.org/dike/avoid.htm
- $inks: who wins, who loses?Members of the Global Forest Coalition and other NGOs and IPOs that gathered in Lyon in September 2000 prepared a statement explaining the reasons for opposing to carbon sinks in the Clean Development Mechanism. Here there are some of the reasons: 1. Sinks are neither long term nor short term solution to mitigating climate change. The lack of verifiable ways of estimating the ability of forests and other ecosystems to 'compensate' for industrial emissions means that the inclusion of sinks in the CDM would destroy the Kyoto Protocol. 2. Including sinks in the CDM would lead to Annex 1 countries receiving credits for forest conservation, restoration, reforestation and tree plantation establishment while the rights and interests of indigenous and other local communities which have been inhabiting and protecting these forests for centuries are neglected. 3. Including sinks in the CDM as a way of meeting the commitments of governments would reinforce existing inequalities. The climate crisis is due to the industrial societies using more than their fair share of the world's carbon cycling capacity to gain more than a fair share of the world's resources. This problem will not be solved by abdicating them a right to take over other people's lands and seas for so-called carbon sequestration and storage. 4. Sinks in the CDM would constitute a worldwide strategy for expropriating Indigenous Peoples' and local communities' lands, seas and territories and violating their fundamental rights. 5. Including sinks in the CDM would provide a huge incentive, on top of existing subsidies, for the establishment of Northern-driven, large scale, environmentally and socially destructive monoculture tree plantations. These plantations are already proving disastrous for peoples and their environments all over the world. Moreover, carbon plantations will result in little revenue for host countries, provide an obstacle for their present and future sustainable development while awarding Annex 1 countries huge sums in terms of carbon credit. 6. Including sinks in the CDM would not address the underlying causes of forest loss. Nor would it create macro-economic conditions making forest conservation and restoration possible. Such conditions include debt reduction, sustainable consumption and production patterns, revision of Structural Adjustment Programmes, strict regulation of international private investment flows and ensuring equitable relationships between North and South. The full text can be accessed at: http://www.wrm.org.uy/english/sinks.htm
- World Rainforest Movement: The Mount Tamalpais Declaration We, the undersigned non-governmental organizations, wish to express extreme concern about the role envisaged for tree plantations in helping industrialized countries meet their commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol of the Framework Convention on Climate Change. The Sixth Conference of the Parties, in November 2000 in the Hague, will likely determine the content of the so-called Clean Development Mechanism, which could allow many Northern countries to meet their emissions reductions targets by implementing projects in the South. Trading carbon sequestered in tree plantations for carbon resulting from burning of fossil fuels cannot justify postponing deep reductions in CO2 emissions in industrialized countries. First, the trade would perpetuate and exacerbate existing inequalities between rich and poor nations and between rich and poor within particular nations. Second, the trade would increase the area of industrial tree plantations, which are already posing severe social and ecological problems worldwide. Third, the claim of quantifiable "climate neutrality" on which this trade rests has a highly questionable scientific basis and sanctions external political interference in the policymaking of the countries of the South. We, the undersigned NGOs, strongly support national and international efforts to address climate change, especially through energy conservation, consumption reduction, more equitable resource use, and equitable development and sharing of renewable sources of energy. We hold that a widespread trade in tree plantation "offsets", through the Clean Development Mechanism and other means, would block or undercut these necessary and urgent measures, which constitute a rare opportunity to move on from dominant and failed patterns of development. We urge governments not to include plantations as carbon sinks in the Clean Development Mechanism and to address industrial emissions separately from tree plantations. A livable climate can be assured only by a commitment to tackling the root causes of global warming. The full text can be accessed at: http://www.wrm.org.uy/english/declarations/Tamalpais.htm
INDEPENDENT RESEARCH FINDINGS In the June edition of the WRM bulletin we proved that many authors and editors of the IPCC Special Report on Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry had vested interests in reaching unrealistically and unjustifiably optimistic conclusions about the possibility of compensating for emissions with trees and we requested that a new report should be instigated, "free of the taint of intellectual corruption." What follows are quotes from a few scientific studies, "free of the taint of intellectual corruption", which warn about the problems involved in the Clean Development Mechanism, which should at least be sufficient to prove that scientists have different positions on this matter. The precautionary principle should therefore be applied and all efforts should be oriented at cutting emissions, as the only scientifically proven safe mechanism to address climate change. - Carbon sink plantations: less biodiversity = less carbon storage Scientific evidences questioning the effectiveness of tree monocultures as carbon sinks are increasing. In case tree plantations are included in the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol there is the risk that --as has happened in the past and is still happening-- vast areas of forests and grasslands in the South will be substituted by monocultures based on a reduced number of fast-growing tree species. This would mean a dramatic decrease in the biodiversity of such areas, both considering number of species and complexity of fluxes at the interior of the system. Two years ago, the 4th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, that took place in Bratislava, explicitly mentioned the potential impact of afforestation, reforestation, forest degradation and deforestation on forest biological diversity and on other ecosystems and mandated its Executive Secretary "to liaise and cooperate with the Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to achieve the objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity." The reason for this was that if massive tree plantations were to be implemented under the guise of "carbon sinks" biodiversity would be negatively affected (see WRM Bulletin 12). Reduction of biodiversity is not only a loss in itself but also means a reduction in their former capability of acting as real carbon sinks. A group of scientists of the Centre for Population Biology of the Imperial College at Silwood Park, UK, proved that declining biodiversity can alter the performance of ecosystems regarding biomass production, nutrient retention, decomposition and carbon dioxide absorption. Using chambers representing different terrestrial microcosms, placed in a specially designed laboratory under controlled conditions of air temperature, relative humidity, soil, etc. --called Ecotron-- the researchers manipulated plant and animal diversity in each chamber, simulating the process of degradation occurring in the real world. Higher-diversity communities consumed more carbon dioxide than lower-diversity ones. The conclusion of the article, published in the prestigious magazine "Nature", is clear: "To the extent that loss of plant biodiverstiy in the real world means a reduction in the ability of ecosystems to fix CO2, we also tentatively conclude that the loss of diversity may reduce the ability of terrestrial ecosystems to absorb anthropogenic CO2". Article based on information from: Shahid Naeem, Lindsey J. Thompson, Sharon P. Lawler, John H. Lawton & Richard M. Woodfin, "Declining biodiversity can alter the performance of ecosystems", Nature, 368:734-736, 21 April 1994.
A recent study of the Tellus Institute and Stockholm Environment Institute-Boston Center concludes "that while the CDM could induce some legitimate lower-emission electricity generation in host countries, it could also give rise to a considerable amount of spurious emissions allowances by crediting non-additional ("free-rider") activities --activities that would have taken place even in the absence of the CDM." The research finds "that under some plausible CDM regimes, the CDM could serve primarily as an instrument for generating spurious credits, and only secondarily as an instrument for economic efficiency or sustainable development." The most striking finding of this research is the magnitude of the potential free-rider problem. "By intention, the CDM is not designed to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. CDM projects that reduce emissions in the host countries will generate emissions credits that enable the investor countries to increase their domestic emissions, exceeding their Annex B emissions targets. Thus, at best, if the CDM operates as intended, it will be carbon-neutral on a global scale. However, in practice, to the extent that the CDM generates unwarranted free-rider credits, it will cause a net increase in global carbon emissions." The researchers argue that "a small flow of free-rider credits might be acceptable, if the overall outcome of the CDM were to help achieve the ultimate objectives of the Climate Convention. This outcome would occur if the CDM catalyzed development and adoption of technologies that could underpin a global transition away from carbon-intensive fuels and contribute to sustainable development. But, in the cases investigated here, it is not evident that the magnitude of potential free-rider credits is justified by the obtained benefits, such as the transfer of some renewable energy technologies to the host countries." The report's main conclusion "is that free-rider credits from non-additional CDM projects threaten to undermine the environmental integrity of the Kyoto Protocol. Some CDM regimes could lead global emissions to increase by as much as 600 MtC relative to the Kyoto Protocol target, if credits awarded spuriously to projects that would have happened anyways are used in place of real carbon reductions. In economic terms, 600 MtC of free-rider credits would be worth $6 billion at $10/tC or $60 billion at $100/tC. These free riders would amount to a multi-billion dollar cross-subsidy to CDM project participants at the expense of the global environment. It is therefore imperative that policy makers devise and adopt a CDM regime that effectively encourages legitimate projects, while rigorously screening out non-additional activities." Article based on information from: "Cleaner generation, free riders, and environmental integrity: Clean Development Mechanism and the Power Sector. An analysis for the World Wildlife Fund" prepared by Steve Bernow, Sivan Kartha, Michael Lazarus, and Tom Page. Tellus Institute and Stockholm Environment Institute-Boston Center, September 2000 (www.tellus.org).
- Impossible to verify compliance if forests are included in CDM The International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), based in Laxenburg, Austria. carried out a detailed study of Russia's biosphere, which contains a fifth of the world's forests. Its report puts in question the whole idea of using carbon sinks as a means of "compensating" for CO2 emissions. Anatoly Shvidenko, one of the scientists involved in the study, stated that under the Kyoto Protocol, Russia is likely to be able to claim credit for improving its biosphere's ability to soak up carbon, but that the uncertainties involved in calculating such credits are huge and "greatly exceed likely changes in industrial emissions." Sten Nilsson, also from IIASA, concluded that "the scientific uncertainties in measuring carbon movements into and out of ecosystems are just too great," and that "by opening up the whole of the biosphere to actions under the Kyoto Protocol, governments have made it completely unverifiable." IIASA's Michael Obersteiner summarized the whole issue by saying that the Protocol "really is a cheat's charter." Asked to comment on the IIASA report, a US analyst of the Kyoto Protocol, David Victor, working at the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations, concurred with its findings. "Their analysis is fundamentally correct. It is essentially impossible to verify compliance if the targets include forests," Victor said. After analysing the IIASA report and other relevant information and viewpoints, "New Scientist" journalist Fred Pearce reaches the conclusion that "the message from the IIASA seems clear. Science is not yet up to policing a system of greenhouse gas targets that includes the biosphere. Until it is, the only viable Kyoto Protocol is one that relies solely on slashing the world's use of fossil fuels." Article based on information
from: IIASA web site:
- Forests better than plantations, even as carbon sinks During the climate change discussions, some have argued that, given that old-growth forests are carbon reservoirs --and not carbon sinks-- the world's climate would benefit from cutting them down, converting the wood into durable products and replanting the clearcut area. The existing carbon would be safely stored in wood products and the plantation trees would act as sinks for many years, until they reached maturity. This would enhance --so they say-- the carbon sink capacity of forest ecosystems. Apart from the many flaws of such approach, a recent study has shown the importance of old-growth forests as carbon sinks and has warned against their substitution by plantations. The research concludes that forests are far better than plantations at ridding the air of carbon dioxide. The analysis, published in the journal Science, was carried out by Dr. Ernst-Detlef Schulze, the director of the Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry in Jena, Germany, and two other scientists at the institute. The German study, together with other similar research, has produced a picture of mature forests that differs sharply from long-held notions in forestry. Dr. Schulze says that aging forests were long perceived to be in a state of decay that releases as much carbon dioxide as it captures. But it turns out that the soils in undisturbed tropical rain forests, Siberian woods and some German national parks contain enormous amounts of carbon derived from fallen leaves, twigs and buried roots that can bind to soil particles and remain there for 1,000 years or more. When such forests are cut, the trees' roots decay and soil is disrupted, releasing the carbon dioxide. Centuries would have to pass until newly planted trees built up such a reservoir underground. The study's authors stress the need to protect old-growth forests. Without such protection, the scientists conclude, some countries could be tempted to cut down old-growth forests now and then plant new trees on the deforested land, getting credit for reducing carbon dioxide when they have actually made matters worse. Several climate and forestry experts familiar with the work have said the study provided an important new argument for protecting primary forests. They add that the study also provides a reminder that the main goal should be to reduce carbon dioxide emissions at the source. Article based on information from "Planting New Forests Can't Match Saving Old Ones in Cutting Greenhouse Gases, Study Finds", by Andrew C. Revkin, New York Times September 22, 2000
LOCAL STRUGGLES AND NEWS AFRICA - Tree plantations: a false alternative to deforestation in Cameroon A number of tree plantation programmes were implemented in Cameroon in the 1950s, when the territory was under French colonial rule, allegedly to address the process of destruction affecting the country's rich rainforests. As a result, about 40,000 hectares of plantations were set up in a period of 50 years, 25,000 of which in areas formerly occupied by dense rainforest, and the remaining 15,000 hectares in the savannah. Indigenous species --such as dibetou, okoumé, ilomba and iroko-- were used to reforest woodlands, while in the savannah both native and exotic species --among which eucalyptus and acacia-- were used. Although the stated aim of the authorities was to restore "the natural forest" in fact such plantations were not only not the solution, but have caused negative impacts. The main reason for this failure is that a plantation of one or two single species --even native ones-- is not a forest, since it lacks its biodiversity and complexity. A forest is the product of a long coevolution process among its different components --including humans-- and the ecological conditions of the site. The recovery of a rainforest in tropical areas is a very difficult task with uncertain results, since the former conditions cannot be recreated artificially all of a sudden. Afforestation with eucalyptus has made matters even worse. Eucalyptus planted by the National Bureau for Forest Regeneration --as if forests could be "regenerated" using eucalyptus!-- in the last two years caused soil acidification and a drastic drop in the fish population of the rivers nearby the plantation. They have increased the risk of fires in the savannah and are held responsible for the increase of severe floods. Since in Cameroon the state claims property over all trees, plantations have provoked conflicts over land tenure between the government and local communities. Additionally, they have generated other problems, as in the case of the northern Sahel region, where local peasants complain that tree plots shelter crop-devastating bird and animals that have brought hunger and misery with them. It is feared that in case tree plantations are accepted as carbon sinks by the Convention on Climate Change, the ongoing projects will be reinforced and new ones will be implemented, thus increasing the level of negative impacts on people and the environment. Halting the deforestation and forest degradation process in Cameroon requires to address and overcome the real causes of the problem, among which the depredatory activities of logging companies and the International Monetary Fund's imposed policies promoting the exploitation of timber to increase the country's export revenues (see WRM Bulletin 28). Tree plantations are not the solution --they are not forests- and will instead only add to the problem. Article based on information from: "Tree Plantations in Cameroon: A Glance at the Possible Negative Impacts" by CED/FoE Cameroon, In: "Tree Trouble". A compilation of Testimonies on the Negative Impacts of Large-Scale Monoculture Tree Plantations prepared for the Sixth Conference of the Parties of the UNFCCC. Friends of the Earth International-World Rainforest Movement-Fern.
- Gabon's forests and the climate debate Gabon's main exports are oil and timber. Both activities contribute to climate change. While the exports of the former result in fossil fuel emissions abroad, the latter result in carbon emissions at home and abroad through the release of the carbon that was stored in the forest biomass. Does this mean that Gabon --as well as many other similar Southern countries-- should be blamed for climate change? Within the international context, it is very clear that the country is a victim of the rules of a game established by industrialized countries and for their benefit. Gabon's forests are being mined by a number of transnational companies, including French, German, Malaysian and others --all countries that participate actively at both the Climate Change and the Biodiversity Conventions. Gabon is one of the less populated countries of Africa, which makes it clear that it is not "overpopulation" but overconsumption abroad which is to be blamed for the increasing rate of deforestation. Gabon is one of the few countries in Central Africa where most of its forest still remains unlogged. However, as transnational loggers deplete other African forests, they turn their attention to the few remaining frontier forests and Gabon seems to be the ideal candidate for those activities. Log production has already increased from 1 million cubic metres in 1975 to almost 3 million by the late 1990s. However, the current "development" model makes it necessary for Gabon to increase the production and export of both timber and oil. Within that framework, as long as overconsumption is not addressed, the country will continue exporting timber. In the same manner, as long as the world's economy continues being based on fossil fuel energy, Gabon will continue exporting increasing volumes of oil. As in the case of what's happening in most of the South, the country, its people and its forests will simply become poorer. In that context, it is clear that Gabon's forests will not be saved by exchanging some money for "carbon permits" for industrialized countries to continue emitting the CO2 contained in Gabon's --and other exporters'-- oil. It is not Gabon which is responsible for climate change, but unless the rules of the game are changed, it will continue contributing to it and suffering the consequences. Article based on information from: "Buying Destruction. A Greenpeace report for corporate consumers of forest products", 1999
- Tanzania: Gold mining adds new problems to Lake Victoria The Tanzanian territory embraces a wide variety of landscapes, including mountains, savanna, bushlands and forests. Some 53,000 square kilometres of the country comprises lakes, being Lake Victoria the biggest one. With an area of 69,490 square kilometres Lake Victoria is the world's second largest freshwater lake. It is an essential resource for the life of the surrounding region, which has one of Africa's highest population densities. Farming, fishing and boatbuilding are the most significant economic activities that directly depend on the lake. The ecological health of Lake Victoria has been deeply affected by a combination of degrading processes of different nature, such as the clearance of natural vegetation along the shores, a booming fish-export industry, the disappearance of several fish species, the eutrophication of the water body, and the dumping of untreated effluents by several industries. Traditional lifestyles of lakeshore communities have been disrupted and it is feared that together with the degradation of the lake they could disappear. This sad story goes back to the first decades of the 20th century, when the British colonialists started to exploit Lake Victoria's watershed, and continued after the political independence of the country in 1963. During colonial times the surrounding forests were cut down, and the swamps that were part of this complex hydrologic system drained. Cash crops, such as tea, coffee and sugar, were planted instead. Over the years they have grown in size and number. Since these crops are based on Green Revolution agriculture, a significant portion of the chemicals used are washed into rivers during the rainy season, and end up in the lake, causing eutrophication and providing nutrients for algae bloom, which completely alters the dynamics of the whole water body. The exagerated growth of the economic activities in the lake and its surrounding area has overcome the carrying capacity of the ecosystem. Not only the surrounding lands but also the water body in itself is subject to overexploitation. With the introduction of modern fishing methods, overfishing has become a problem and catch sizes have dropped. A survey of the lake carried out in 1980 revealed a total reverse in biomass composition. As a consequence the populations of smaller fish, which traditionally have been the source of livelihood for nearby communities, have been decimated by larger predators and overfishing. Polluting industries --from textile and leather-tanning to paper mills and breweries-- located near the lake, constitute another cause for the present situation. A recent study shows that industrial plants located in the Tanzanian territory produce daily two million litres of untreated sewage and industrial waste that flow into the lake. To add to the problem, last June a new and extremely polluting activity began in the region: gold mining. The companies involved are Ashanti Goldfields of Ghana and AngloGold of South Africa. Tanzanian President Benjamin Mkapa himself, who inaugurated the Geita Gold Mine, the biggest one in East Africa, located 20 kilometres away from the southern shore of Lake Victoria, even pledged more incentives for investments in the sector. Environmentalists from Tanzania and Uganda have clearly expressed their opposition to gold mining, and warned that there is a high risk that sodium cyanide, a strong poison used to extract gold from ore, might leak into the lake through the rivers and cause an additional negative effect to the already affected water system. Concerned voices from the academic sector in both countries have also harshly criticized the Tanzanian government for supporting a project that would jeopardize the environment of the lake and the lives of communities living around it. I has been underscored that mining in the region will also bring negative consequences for the region and the country's economy, since the European Union is about to ban all fish imports from East Africa because of the presence of toxic elements in the fishes' bodies. Article based on information
obtained from: Drillbits & Tailings, Volume 5, Number 15, 19/9/2000;
"Lake Victoria: a sick giant" by Nancy Chege, The Worldwatch
Institute ( http://www.oneworld.org/patp/pap_victoria.html );Victoria,
Lake
ASIA - Burma: Human rights abuses linked to foreign investment in "development" Foreign investment in mining, gas exploitation and dam megaprojects --identified with "development"-- in fact constitute a direct cause for human rights abuses and a threat to environmental sustainability in Burma. The country is governed by a military dictatorship since 1962, which has imposed a regime characterised by state terrorism. The social and environmental damage mining operations have brought to Burma are analysed in the recently released report "Grave Diggers" written by Roger Moody and disseminated by a group of Canadian environmental NGOs. The report highlights the activities of Robert Friedland and his mining and financial empire Ivanhoe Capital Corporation (ICC). Friedland is notorious for the environmental disasters caused by mining operations he owned in the United States and Guyana, and his corporate links to mercenary armies in Sierra Leone. In 1994 ICC reached an agreement with the Burmese military regime to exploit the Monywa copper mine. These operations have caused water pollution and skin problems to local residents while safety measures were completely absent. Additionally, local dwellers were threatened by the use of explosives for mining. It is astonishing that even though the financing for this operation is handled through a firm registered in Canada (Friedland's Ivanhoe Mines Ltd.) and human rights organizations worldwide have condemned corporations for doing business in connection with the brutal Burmese regime, the Canadian government has completely overlooked Ivanhoe's investment in that country. The Yadana gas pipeline is another case where the performance of foreign companies in collusion with the government has been severely questioned due to its environmental impacts and to the violation of human rights to the detriment of the local villagers (see WRM Bulletin 36). On September 7 a Federal judge of Los Angeles cleared Unocal Corp. --one of the largest remaining U.S. investors in Burma-- of responsibility for alleged human rights abuses during the construction of the Yadana pipeline. Unocal holds 28.6 % of the shares of the consortium in charge of the works, which ended in 1998. Lawyers representing Burmese villagers that presented the demand in 1996, who claim that they were either forced by the military to work on the project or were terrorised for not doing so, said they would appeal the decision. Unocal did not dispute the assertion that it was aware that human rights abuses were being committed by the host government during the pipeline project. Nevertheless, according to the judge, it was not proven that the oil company had conspired with the military to force the villagers to work. The question is whether justice can accept the "omission" of a powerful transnational in a case regarding human rights abuses, especially when its activities are favoured by those directly responsible for them. Last but not least, a dam project led by the Thai dam-building company GMS Power and the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT), which aims to build a huge dam at the Salween River, the only remaining free-flowing major river in the region, has recently also given place to human rights abuses in Burma. Since 1997 villages in Kunhing Township, along the banks of the Salween and its tributary Nampang have been relocated. Altogether 175 villages, 4,018 houreholds and more than 1,400 hectares of fields would be flooded when the dam is completed. But since last May the situation got even worse. Villagers in southern Shan State have denounced that the Burmese Army had begun an operation of extermination of the population located in the areas to be flooded by the dam's reservoir. Article based on information from: Drillbits & Tailings, Volume 5, Number 16, 30/9/2000; International Rivers Network, e.mail: owner-irn-mekong@netvista.net , 19/9/2000
- Oil Palm Plantation in Cambodia In early 1999, the Phnom Penh Municipal Authority moved 99 families from a squat behind the Russian embassy in Phnom Penh to Monorom 1, a newly constructed village 150 kilometres away. With the promise of work on an oil palm plantation, new houses and two hectares of palm plantation each many of the squatters were willing to move. A billboard put up by the Phnom Penh authorities announcing that part of the squatters' area was to be made into a park further encouraged people to move. Monorom 1 consists of 99 wooden houses built in rows, half with blue roofs and half with red roofs, each on its own small plot of land. The Phnom Penh authorities also constructed a market and a school. The company that established the plantation, Mong Reththy Investment Cambodia Oil Palm Co. Ltd., is a joint venture between Mong Reththy and three foreign partners. Mong Reththy, one of Cambodia's richest businessmen, holds 60 per cent of the company, while the rest is shared between Borim Universal Co. Ltd. (South Korea, 20%), Kim Tat Send Group Pte. Ltd. (Singapore, 10%) and Lavanaland Sdn. Bhd. (Malaysia, 10%). The US$12 million investment consists of 3,800 hectares of oil palm plantation and a processing factory due to be completed by 2002. Seventy per cent of the factory's output will be for export, largely to China and South Korea, with the remainder going to local soap manufacturers. In February this year Mong Reththy told Reuters that the plantation would employ 3,000 workers. The people relocated from Phnom Penh to work on the plantation tell a different story. Long Saran, one of the villagers who moved to the new village was laid off in April this year. He said, "When the 99 families moved from Phnom Penh about 50 people got jobs with the company. The Government had told us we would all work for the company." Now less than ten people from Monorom 1 work on the plantation according to another villager. None of the villagers have received the promised two hectare palm oil plots. In any case the company would not have given the two hectare plots freely. Instead they provided the company with a means to chain villagers to the company. Villagers began life in Monorom 1 with a debt to the company of US$4,430. According to the Mong Reththy company, the company would keep 30 per cent of the income from villagers' two hectare oil palm plots until this debt was repaid. In October 1998, before the villagers were relocated, Pho Vuthy the plantation manager told the Phnom Penh Post that crops like rice, beans and corn could be grown between the rows of oil palm to supplement villagers' income in the first three years. In fact after one year the company prohibited this on the grounds that it could lead to fires in the plantations. The villagers want Chea Sophara, the Phnom Penh Governor, and Prime Minister Hun Sen to visit Monorom 1 and learn about their problems. "The Government should practise its policy and provide jobs as it promised. Solutions can be found through debate with the people here. If there is no resolution, villagers will make a complaint to the Government to resolve the problem," said Long Saran. The Mong Reththy company established its oil palm plantation on land that was either forest or already in use by people living in one of the four villages in the area. For example, almost all the 300 families in Tanei village lost land to the company's plantations. The village has now moved to an area adjacent to Highway 4, the main road between Phnom Penh and Sihanoukville, and many of the people try to earn a living from selling drinks and fruit from the small shops lining the road. Many villagers feel tricked by the company into giving up their land. One villager who lost his land to the company and has never received any compensation explained, "The chief of the commune asked us to give our thumb prints on a statement, but so far we haven't received anything. The government has given money to the company, but every month the company tells us it will pay us next month. Now one year has passed." Other villagers from Tanei that did receive compensation only received money for land, and nothing for the trees they had planted on the land. In July, Mong Reththy told the Phnom Penh Post that his company still intended to provide land for the villagers. "We will provide land for them when they have money to buy seed to grow crops. We will give land to whoever wants to grow crops and has the money to plant," he said. Meanwhile, most of the families in Monorom 1 are unemployed and are either collecting firewood from the nearby forests to sell in Phnom Penh, or are moving back to Phnom Penh to look for work there. By: Chris Lang. E-mail: http://chrislang.org
- SE Asia: deforestation, floods and responsibilities Some of the so called "natural disasters" --for example those related to floods-- actually result from the combination of natural and human-induced factors. Deforestation is one of the aspects more related to the vulnerability of affected areas in this respect. Lacking the natural coverage provided by the forest, hillsides become prone to landslides, thus increasing the effect of heavy rains associated to floods and their destructive potential (see WRM Bulletins 17 and 27). In a major condemnation of widespread logging and other forest clearing activities that continue to occur across Asia, the United Nations Economic & Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) has recently pointed out that deforestation was a major cause of the floods that last August devastated Indochina and the Mekong delta. Heavy rains and huge floods destroyed entire areas, caused the death of hundreds of people in Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos and Thailand, and forced more than a million people to abandon their lands and homes. While the Laotian Ministry of Agriculture considers that this event has been the worst in the country since 1978, Cambodian officials expressed that the number of deaths and the amount of destroyed crops would be high. ESCAP said the intensity of flood disasters had increased in the region during the past few years. The UN agency also provides alarming figures concerning deforestation in Asia. Forests in most Asian countries have been reduced from 75% of their total area in 1945 to just 25% in 1995. Nevertheless governments --far from addressing the direct and indirect causes of deforestation-- continue to favour it by facilitating commercial logging and forest conversion to monoculture tree plantations. Official policies and not nature are to be considered responsible for the human and material losses produced by this kind of tragic events that --fuelled by climate change and contributing to it-- affect their respective countries. Article based on information from: UN agency blames Mekong floods on deforestation, Reuters, 25/9/2000, in Worldwide Forest / Biodiversity Campaign News 25/9/2000, sent by Glen R. Barry, e-mail: grbarry@students.wisc.edu ; "Thousands flee flooding in Mekong Delta", The Nation, Saturday 2/9/2000, sent by Towards Ecological Recovery and Regional Alliance (TERRA), e-mail: terraper@commnet.ksc.net.th
CENTRAL AMERICA - Costa Rica: The dangers of tree monoculture "forests" As many other Southern countries, Costa Rica is facing the problem of the expansion of tree monocultures. Especially in the Huetar Norte Region, the establishment of industrial tree plantations has been a complete failure during the last 20 years. After having spent U$S 10 million in such programmes, nowadays more than 70% of those plantations are in a bad state and have produced far below the expected rate. At the same time the potential of the secondary forests and its rich biodiversity --which concerning trees comprise more than 150 species-- has been neglected. In spite of the semantic efforts of plantation promoters to call them "planted forests" and to call the activity "reforestation", the fact is that plantations are not forests and that these plantations result in a number of social and environmental impacts. Industrial tree monocultures imply the occupation of vast territories and concentration in land tenure, and the displacement of small and medium peasants. In the case of Ston Forestal --a subsidiary of the giant Stone Container-- about 300 families had to leave their lands in southern Costa Rica, which were then occupied by gmelina tree monocultures. Additionally, these plantations conspire against the promotion of traditional knowledge in forest management and agriculture. The Melku indigenous people, in the northern region of the country, saw how 40,000 hectares in their region were occupied by tree monocultures with subsidies from the State, while they did not receive any support to recuperate the "mastate" (Poulsenia armata), a species which resulted almost extinct due to the pressure of logging, and which was the basis for local craftwork. Social impacts have gone hand in hand with negative environmental impacts. Ston Forestry is facing legal prosecution for causing the dessication of wetlands, while gmelina monocultures in the Osa Peninsula are considered responsible of a potential negative effect on the population of parrots and guacamayos in the nearby Cordovado National Park. Oil palm plantations implemented by the firm Palma Tica are expanding in the wetlands of the southern area, in spite of the efforts of local environmental activists, who have even sued the company. Teak monocultures promote soil erosion through the concentration and quick release of large raindrops from their leaves. In the northern region it has been proved that eucalyptus monocultures reduce the flow of water into the aquifers. In spite of the above, the Costa Rican government is strongly supporting the inclusion of tree plantations in the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol. How many more impacts will people and the environment need to suffer to finally reach the obvious conclusion that plantations are not forests? Article based on information from: "Monoculture Forestry, A Critique from an Ecological Perspective", by Javier Baltodano, Coecoceiba, Friends of the Earth - Costa Rica, In: "Tree Trouble". A compilation of Testimonies on the Negative Impacts of Large-Scale Monoculture Tree Plantations prepared for the Sixth Conference of the Parties ofthe UNFCCC. Friends of the Earth International-World Rainforest Movement-Fern.
- Nicaragua: the adoption of the "Chilean plantation model" Nicaragua is still considered the country having the largest forest cover in Central America, and that with the most extensive primary forests. During the decade of 1980 forest destruction was temporarily halted by the war which was taking place up in the mountains, which forced many indigenous and peasant communities to abandon the region. In 1994 the signature of the First Structural Adjustment Programme meant a boost for the commercial opening of the country. Concessions for the exploitation of natural resources were granted to foreign and national firms. With the excuse of promoting investments and generating jobs forest concessions were granted, and now the government is facing a lawsuit at the Interamerican Court for Human Rights presented by the indigenous communities. In late 1996 the government submitted a draft forestry bill to the National Assembly, resulting from a consensus reached between several sectors. Nevertheless, there was a lack of will by both government and parliament to pass the Forestry Law. Instead a Forestry Statute was approved, but lacking a general legal and conceptual framework. During the last years, Nicaraguan forests have been at the mercy of the voracity of the domestic and foreign markets. Responding to pressures at the national and international levels, in 1998 the country's President issued a decree establishing a 5-year moratorium for the extraction and export of fine woods. The described situation showed the absence of a legal framework and a policy regarding forests and the forestry sector. Nevertheless in 2000, under the pressure of international financial institutions, the Agriculture and Forestry Ministry, together with the Commission for the Environment of the National Assembly, hired consultants to elaborate a new Draft Bill for Forestry Development and Promotion. The resulting draft bill confirms the statements previously made by the ministers and the president of the Commission for the Environment, who had expressed that the law would follow the Chilean model, since according to them this country has had the best experience in this regard. Last July the proposal was submitted to different sectors in a "consultation" process, who have been working on it since. Nonetheless, almost no-one appears to be concerned about the fact that the law will include plantations as forests, nor about the incentives aimed exclusively at the forestry industry, nor about the fiddlingrepresented by the clean development mechanism. There was only one consultation with indigenous communities, whose viewpoint was that "this law is useless; we need another one that protects the forest and that does not sell everything." Nicaragua still has no experience on tree plantations, except that of trials and wind-breaks. Eucalyptus is rejected by peasants, who say that it depletes water resources and are demanding the use of native species in reforestation projects. Even though for unknown reasons the government and the Assembly are urged to pass the law during this year, this will not happen until March 2001. The reason for this is probably that the authorities and members of parliament are trying to convince themselves about the advantages of the Chilean model. Article sent by: Centro Alexander von Humboldt, 22/10/2000, e-mail: humboldt@ibw.com.ni
SOUTH AMERICA - Bolivia: indigenous peoples concerned by oil prospection The tropical rainforests of the departament of Beni in the eastern lowlands of Bolivia are suffering deforestation caused by the unscrupulous awarding of concessions to private companies by the government. While large landowners occupy more and more lands, indigenous property rights are not recognized. Now a new threat is pending on them: oil exploitation. In case the oil prospection at the Eva Eva Sur X1 well gives positive results, the whole territory of Beni departament is at risk of becoming an oil producer region. Indigenous people are concerned since they foresee that oil can leave them poorer and destroy their natural resources, as has already happened with mining in other regions of the country, and with oil exploitation itself in several countries of South America, Africa and Asia. "I don't know whether to live in a rich territory means a fortune or a misfortune" expressed a spokesperson of the indigenous communities living at the Sécure block area, granted to the consortium Repsol-YPF-Maxus. The area is included in the communal territories belonging to the chimanes, yuraceres, mojeño, ignacianos and movimas indigenous peoples. The Eva Eva Sur X1oil well has been drilled at the sources of the Apere River, which provides indigenous communities with water. The activities of the company are regulated by the Hydrocarbon Law, which allows oil prospection under the condition that it does not damage the environment. However, the indigenous peoples' concern is easy to understand, considering previous calamities occurring in Bolivia involving oil spills, such as those of the Desaguadero River in Oruro, the Pirque River in Parotani, and the Parapetí River in Camiri. Additionally this kind of problems, presented as "accidents", constitute really an inherent risk to oil exploitation which not only is a direct responsible of global climate change but also responsible for environmental destruction and local communities disintegration throughout the world. Article based on information from: "Pueblos indígenas alertas ante la incursión de petroleras" por Helen Alvarez, Los Tiempos, 4/9/2000, sent by: Elsbeth Vocat, 6/9/2000, e-mail: evocat@nextron.ch
- Brazil. The short memory of Veracel and the power of Aracruz In response to the information published by Taiga Rescue Network in Taiga News Summer 2000 edition, issue 32, regarding the social and environmental impacts of Veracel's eucalyptus plantations in the state of Bahia, Antonio Alberto Prado --Public Affairs Manager of the company-- addressed the publishers to explain them that " . . . since its inception, in 1991, Veracel’s land management and plantation development has been based on sustainable, ecologically sound principles". According to him, when Veracel arrived in the region the native Atlantic Forest ("mata atlantica") had mostly disappeared. "The areas used for planting", he states, "are those that have already suffered irreversible interference from man, being mainly pastures and degraded areas." He adds that Veracel is undertaking a conservation programme for the native forests remnants and that "the resultant landscape is typified by the forest mosaic of eucalyptus on plateaus with native forests in the intersecting valleys." He also adds that the presence of Veracel was "welcomed by the local population as a unique opportunity to preserve and restore the native forest while providing jobs for a population with roots in forest operations." To say the least, Mr Prado seems to have an extremely short memory. Fortunately, the "welcomed" arrival of his company was well documented by the Brazilian NGOs FASE, IBASE and CDDH-Teixeira de Freitas, which carried out extensive research from 1992 to 1996 on the impacts of the expansion of eucalyptus monocultures in northern Espirito Santo and southern Bahia. In 1992 the company arrived to southern Bahia under the name of VeraCruz Florestal, with the aim of setting up eucalyptus plantations and a pulp mill. One year later a group of Brazilian environmental and social NGOs together with SINTREXBEM --the union of forestry workers-- denounced that the company was devastating the mata atlantica forest, one of the most biodiverse ecosystems in the world, and filed a suit against the company. In February 1993 VeraCruz Florestal had its operations temporarily suspended by the Ministry of the Environment and the Brazilian Justice for breaching the environmental law for the protection of the mata atlantica. All this is very well documented in a number of publications which Mr Prado should have read before responding to Taiga News and among which we recommend him the "Dossie Veracruz", published in 1993. However, Mr Prado appears to know nothing about that and prefers to underscore the fact that "Veracel also owns and protects a reserve of over 6,000 hectares of primary forest." However, this area was simply there when the company arrived and the only thing that the company can be "proud and honored" about --as his letter says-- is that in that specific case the company did not violate the law! But Mr Prado also seems to forget that at the same time the company was destroying vast areas of mata atlantica forest to set up its plantations a few kilometres from that place. Additionally the presence of remnant forest in the "intersecting valleys" is much more connected to technical difficulties in entering with machinery to plant those areas than to environmental considerations. Social impacts of Veracel in the region have also been negative. Like other big forestry companies operating in the region --Aracruz Celulose and Bahia Sul Celulose-- the company occupied vast areas of land for its plantations. Thus more and more small and medium rural landowners were deprived of their lands, progressively invaded by plantations., while other economic alternatives disappeared. Only at the beginning of its operations the company received the support from local people, who saw it as possible job creator. But this support quickly disappeared, since the number of jobs created was smaller than promised, while the overall number of employment opportunities actually decreased in the region. Mr Prado's letter shows that Veracel --whose major shareholders are now Stora Enso and Aracruz Celulose-- is quickly learning from its new partner Aracruz (see WRM bulletin 36) on how to disguise its impacts under a green discourse. But words cannot hide the facts for very long. However, these companies don't use only words. They also use their power. Aracruz Celulose --with extensive eucalyptus plantations in the neighbouring state of Espirito Santo-- is now aiming at getting approval for a further expansion of its plantations in southern Bahia. Aracruz is famous for its long conflict with the Tupinikim and Guarani indigenous peoples in Espirito Santo, legitimate owners of the land that the company is occupying with vast eucalyptus plantations to feed its pulp mill. The company has requested the fast approval of the Environmental Impact Assessment for a further 45,000 hectares of eucalyptus plantations in southern Bahia. Environmental NGOs have denounced that the process is completely biased in favour of Aracruz, which is using its influence to get the EIA approved. Aracruz has also strong links with the Governor of Bahia, who sees plantations with good eyes. Unless local organizations manage to influence the process, the EIA will probably become a mere formality and the states of Bahia and Espirito Santo will increasingly become --in the words of a Tupinikim indigenous leader-- a sea of "dead forests that kill everything." Article based on information from: http://www.snf.se/TRN/TaigaNews/News32/Tn32.pdf ; FASE/IBASE/Greenpeace.- Dossie Veracruz, Rio, December 1993; Sandra Faillace, FASE, 7/10/2000, e-mail: sandra@ax.apc.org; CEPEDES, 10/10/2000, e-mail: cepedes@vrnet.com.br
Since late August, Chilean forestry companies are carrying out an aggressive publicity campaign under the slogan of "Forests for Chile." Many of us Chilean people feel that we are being attacked by this campaign, which is being very strongly promoted through the mass media. According to the timber corporations' organization CORMA, which groups the large wood and pulp industries, this campaign will be implemented during five years and during its first phase it will cost one million dollars. The total cost of the campaign is estimated in 6 million dollars. The campaign will be carried by all the communications media (television, radio and press), accompanied by different opinion articles written by prominent executives from the more important forestry companies. The aim of the campaign's messages is to generate confusion. For instance, the TV spots show pine tree plantations, saying that they are "Forests for Chile." The same publicity shows a house, furniture and other wood products and says: "wood, a renewable resource", repeating "Forests for Chile." Radio publicity is not very different. The sound of a hand knocking on wood is heard and the broadcaster names different musical instruments (piano, guitar, violin, etc.) and repeats: "Forests for Chile." The campaign obviously aims at improving the image that the Chilean public has on the forestry sector, given that the results of a survey carried out by CORMA itself showed that 97% of Chileans believe that forests are endangered. Through this strategy the Chilean forestry companies aim at hiding the impacts they have caused with the establishment of large scale tree plantations: soil erosion resulting from clear-cutting, the use of agrochemicals which end up polluting water courses, the poor working and living conditions and miserable salaries received by forestry workers. It also aims at concealing the serious impacts that these plantations have inflicted on biodiversity by occupying extensive areas, fragmenting the habitats of native species and substituting at least 200,000 hectares of native forests during the past 25 years. The campaign says nothing about the way in which the lands now occupied by plantations were acquired, nor about how the state has during all these years subsidized the establishment of alien tree plantations with the consequent enrichment of large scale plantation owners. Neither does the campaign explain that the objective of these plantations is not to produce high value-added wood products, but are instead oriented at producing raw wood and pulp for export. The environmental, ecological and consumer organizations are extremely worried about this and we have begun to carry out actions in response to this campaign. The first is to request support from organizations and individuals to a "public clarification" which we have named "True Forests for Chile." Each of the supporting organizations will commit itself to carry out, within its possibilities, actions to expose the corporations' campaign. However, in spite of the difficulty of counteracting the effects of such a well funded campaign as that being implemented by the corporations, the Chilean non governmental organizations can feel very proud about their success. Through the launching of this campaign, the forestry sector is acknowledging its increasing social discredit resulting from its own actions and from the permanent fundamented critique of civil society organizations over the serious impacts that tree monocultures have had on Chilean forests, on other ecosystems, on biodiversity, on water, on soils and on the local populations in the regions invaded by plantations. They have been forced to take 6 million dollars from their pockets in order to improve their image. And even though they have more than enough, taking dollars from their pockets is for them always painful. By: Flavia Liberona, Red Nacional de Acción Ecológica RENACE; e.mail: alerce.renace@rdc.cl
OCEANIA - Aotearoa/New Zealand: opposition to genetically engineered trees While genetic engineering applied to food production is provoking concern among consumers and citizens and many scientists express their doubts and criticism in relation to it, big food, forestry and energy corporations are engaged in developing genetically modified trees, expected to be able to grow faster and to contain components desired by industry. (see WRM Bulletins 26 and 27) Last August the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) of New Zealand received through a specially created web site (www.context.co.nz ), up to 700 submissions on genetically engineered pine trees. This initiative of participatory democracy with regard to an important environmental issue is part of the evaluation process of the application made by the Forest Research Institute (FRI) to ERMA in order to make a field trial of genetically engineered pine trees in the open environment. It is important to highlight that until now this new system had never received more than 50 submissions, which clearly shows the public's concern over this issue. Out of the 700 submissions, the vast majority were critical to the field trial. Mario Rautner, Greenpeace's campaigner on genetically engineered trees, expressed that the results clearly show that the public does not agree with the release of genetically engineered trees into the country's open environment. "We are calling on the FRI to accept the public opposition to this experiment. We would like to see the FRI applying the voluntary moratorium and halting this field trial now. Genetically engineered trees could pose a very serious threat to the environment and we oppose this unpredictable experiment with nature" he added. The question is whether the authorities will act according to the public's desires and definitively give up the field trial or if they will respond to the interest of industry. It is to be underscored that the inclusion of tree plantations as supposed carbon sinks under the CDM of the Kyoto Protocol would mean a boost for the development of biotechnology in the forestry sector, arguing that GE trees would be able to grow faster and then to absorb more CO2 in less time. An additional risk that should be taken in account by climate negotiators in the next meeting at The Hague. Article based on imformation sent by Mario Rautner, Greenpeace New Zealand, 11/8/2000 and 31/8/2000, e-mail: mario.rautner@nz.greenpeace.org , web site: www.greenpeace.org For more information on GE trees in New Zealand visit: www.context.co.nz/submssions/getrees.html
|
 |
|||
|
|||
|
Go to Home Page
World Rainforest Movement
Maldonado 1858 - 11200 Montevideo - Uruguay
tel: 598 2 413 2989 / fax: 598 2 410 0985
wrm@wrm.org.uy
