|
|
WRM Bulletin
|
|
|
OUR VIEWPOINT - Those who protect and those who destroy the forests For years the mainstream "experts" were wrong in the identification of the main causes leading to deforestation and they were thus equally wrong in the solutions they put forward to save the forests. According to them, one of the main causes of deforestation was the use of fuelwood by "the poor". Their solution was thus to put in place eucalyptus plantations to provide "the poor" with firewood. According to them, people living in the forests were responsible for deforestation and therefore needed to be removed from the forest in order to protect the latter from the former. People were thus expelled from their homelands under the pretence of protecting the forests. This simplistic "blame the poor" approach did not even come up with the solution that if the poor were the main cause of deforestation, then all efforts should be focused on the eradication of poverty. Instead, major efforts were dedicated to eradicate the poor from the forests! While those experts were hard at work, so were the true agents of deforestation. Logging companies continued to log --legally and illegally. Dam builders continued damming the rivers and covering millions of hectares of forests under the dams' reservoirs. Mangrove forests continued to disappear at the hands of industrial shrimp farmers. Export-oriented agricultural crops and cattle raising cleared increasing areas of forests. Industrial tree plantations --pulpwood, timber, oil-palm and others-- resulted in the substitution of vast areas of diverse forests by alien tree monocultures. Mining and oil companies continued to destroy and pollute the forests. All those processes have resulted --and still result-- in severe local and global environmental impacts and all those impacts result in human suffering. Millions of people either live in the forest or their livelihoods depend on the forest. Deforestation thus generates poverty, simply because all those millions of people are deprived of their livelihoods once the forest disappears or once they are "resettled" elsewhere. It also generates widespread human rights abuses and many people have been killed --and are still being killed-- for defending their rights and for protecting the same forests that the world's governments declare to seek to protect. However, it would be wrong to highlight only direct causes of deforestation such as logging, shrimp farming, plantations, dams and so on. It is important to go deeper into the matter and to realize that behind those causes are other --underlying-- which constitute the root cause of the problem. Among these is the issue of overconsumption in the North, which results in an ever increasing demand of cheap raw materials --wood, oil, minerals, etc.-- and equally cheap farm products such as soy beans, meat or shrimps. Making supply of those commodities possible are crucial actors such as the IMF, World Bank, Regional Development Banks, Northern consultancies, export-credit agencies, bilateral "aid" agencies. And in between are corrupt government officials and equally corrupt northern and corporate corruptors. The end result is deforestation and the violation of the rights of local peoples. This issue of the WRM bulletin includes --as most of the previous ones-- many of the typical situations, where forests are under threat because of the combined action of actors such as governments, corporations, multilateral and bilateral agencies, while they are being protected by indigenous and other local peoples. Reality is thus showing that it is not the "poor" who are destroying the forest, but very powerful interests --local and transnational. Protecting the forests therefore implies supporting local peoples' struggles for their rights while at the same time working to generate conditions to address the root causes of deforestation at both the national and international levels. Only when that happens, forests will be saved and forest and forest-dependent peoples will be able to live in peace and harmony with nature.
LOCAL STRUGGLES AND NEWS AFRICA - Cameroon: New electronic bulletin The Cameroonian Center for Environment & Development (CED) has sent out the first issue of "Inside Cameroon", a monthly electronic bulletin in English containing update information on environment, development, economics and Human Rights issues in that country. A French version will be available soon. This first bulletin provides detailed information and clear analysis on a number of crucial environmental and social issues, as detailed in the table of contents: Forests: International Finance
Institutions: The Chad Cameroon oil pipeline: Corporate news: Book review: To subscribe to the bulletin, please contact: infocameroon@cedcam.org
- Cameroon: Research questions myths about fuelwood use and deforestation A study, published by IITA and CIFOR in 1997, on the production and consumption of firewood and the relationship between this use of wood and deforestation in southern Cameroon shows interesting results, which question some of the myths related to the responsibility of the rural poor in forest destruction as well as on the alleged benefits of plantations to counteract it. Previous studies in Africa showed that agriculture contributes as much as and even more than the use of firewood to forest destruction. In Côte d’Ivoire, for example 5 million hectares of forests were converted to croplands between 1966 and 1980 and some 3 million cubic metres of wood were destroyed --not even used as firewood-- which was more than the total volume of wood exported during the same period. Recent research focused on the issue of energy concluded that agriculture is the main cause of deforestation in Africa. A study by the World Bank dated in 1987 even asserts that although deforestation is usually linked to the cutting of trees to obtain firewood, the opposite is what usually happens: firewood is the by-product of land-clearance for agriculture. This is true to the rainforest area of Cameroon, where vast areas have been cut down, ploughed up and converted into croplands. Firewood is collected from the remainings of such trees. On the contrary, in the Sahel region of the country, where shrubs dominate the landscape, firewood is obtained from cutting the branches of the scarce trees while ensuring their conservation. The research proves that urbanization, extension of areas occupied by crops, and deforestation for the obtention of firewood are correlated. In the densely populated areas of Yaoundé and its surroundings, where firewood consumption is high and where there has been a strong pressure on forests by agriculture, forests have almost disappeared. However, in the more rural area of Ebolowa, forest reserves are more abundant since firewood supply is by far greater that its demand. Additionally, the work confirms that the consumption of firewood by rural households for cooking and heating does not pose a threat to forests, since volumes used are reduced and there is a quick regeneration of the resource. The study clearly shows that generalizations about the relationship between firewood use and deforestation cannot be made, because many variables need to be taken on board, such as population density --both rural and urban-- the nature of the activities carried out by small farmers, the proximity of urban centres, urban demand for firewood, the quality of highways, etc. For instance, villages near the main urban centres sell large quantities of firewood, both obtained from agricultural land-clearances and from wood cut from forest reserves. On the contrary, fuelwood is not at all sold in distant rural areas, where wood supply is far greater than fuelwood demand and wood from land clearance --the main cause of deforestation in this case-- is left to rot in place. Confirming the conclusions of previous studies, the author also show that plantations for firewood are not an adequate measure to provide this resource and to diminish the pressure on forests. This type of solution was promoted by governments and development agencies considering that it could also bring with it positive side effects, such as job creation and income generation. None of this ever happened in reality. Small peasants in Cameroon as well as in India, for example, prefer to set up multiple use plantations --whose products can be sold at good prices in the market-- than plantations merely aimed at obtaining firewood. In sum, deforestation processes in Africa cannot be explained by simplistic analyses too often used to put the blame on the poor. The same is applicable to solutions. There are enormously different situations in Africa and within African countries and those different situations need to be taken into account before making generalizations and implementing solutions. Article based on information from: Adrienne Paule Demenou, "La place du bois de feu dans un systeme agroforestier", IITA/CIFOR, Cameroon, 1997. See full document (in French) at: http://www.wrm.org.uy/countries/Cameroon/demenou.html
- Congo, D.R: The case of the Twa of the Kahuzi-Biega National Park The book written by Albert Kwokwo Barume recently published by the Forest Peoples Programme and IWGIA --"Heading Towards Extinction? Indigenous Rights in Africa: The Case of the Twa of the Kahuzi-Biega National Park, Democratic Republic of Congo"-- examines the fate of the Twa indigenous people in that country. The author, a Congolese human rights lawyer, uses an indigenous rights framework to examine the case of the Twa indigenous "Pygmy" people located in the eastern region of the country, who were expelled from their traditional lands in order to create the Kahuzi-Biega National Park. The Twa, a hunting and gathering people of the tropical forests, face a dismal future. Denied access to the lands that they have depended on for millennia, they now live in miserable squatter camps on the margins of other villages in the area surrounding the Park. Deprived of rights, compensation or justice, and exposed to discrimination from other sectors of society, the Twa are also suffering an alarming rise in malnutrition and disease. The wider context of African policies regarding ethnic identity and the rights of indigenous peoples are also examined. The report situates the Twa within two important new areas of thinking: the growing movement of self-identified ‘indigenous peoples’ in Africa, who are invoking emerging concepts of international law to renegotiate their relationship with the states that encompass them; and new models of conservation which recognise the rights of indigenous peoples, value their knowledge and seek to give them a central role in the management of conservation zones. The Twa of Kahuzi-Biega have yet to benefit from either of these changes in thinking and this report therefore discusses land rights and possible options for the Twa to challenge their expulsion from the Kahuzi-Biega National Park and negotiate new arrangements based on the recognition of their rights. The report ends with concrete recommendations for reforms in the way the Congolese authorities, conservationists, and the aid agencies supporting them, are dealing with the Twa. The contradiction between nature conservation and indigenous peoples rights is false. So the report does not seek to undermine the efforts of Congolese and expatriate conservationists who have struggled to protect the country’s wildlife in war-torn eastern Congo. However, the need to respect the rights of peoples who have been and are being abused, is self-evident. The author asserts that conservation will be strengthened and not weakened when local communities experience it as a positive project for their own benefit. The book contains the following chapters: 1) The Political context; 2) Indigenous Peoples in Africa; 3) Conservation in Congo and the Kahuzi-Biega National Park; 4) The Expulsion of the Twa from the Kahuzi-Biega National Park; 5) Land Rights; 6) Recommendations Those interested in purchasing it, please contact: info@fppwrm.gn.apc.org
- Kenya: International campaign for the Ogiek The Ogiek people of Kenya constitute an ethnic minority community, which has lived basically from hunting and honey-gathering since time immemorial in the highland Tinet forest area, which are part of the vast Mau Forests in Kenya, about 250 km west of the capital Nairobi. Some of them also practise subsistence farming and livestock breeding. Even though they consider themselves as the guardians of such forests and have managed them in a sustainable way, they have been forced to defend themselves against the arbitrariness of both colonial and post-colonial governments, who have ignored them and wanted to get hold of their lands. They resisted official arm twisting and threats, and several times went to court in the defense of their rights (see WRM Bulletins 24 and 33). The last chapter of this unconcluded legal controversy has been the sentence of the Kenya Appeals Court of May 2000, which stopped the government's imminent resolution to evict the Ogiek from their homeland. Nevertheless, the authorities insist on trying to force them out of the forest alleging that it is a protected area included in the country's Forest Act. This argument is false for two reasons. From a legal point of view, the Forest Act establishes that indigenous peoples' territorial rights have to be protected. On the ground, what the government is really doing is paving the way for powerful logging companies to enter the Tinet forests, even though it now claims it is a "protected area". The logging ban in force exempts three big logging companies --Pan African Paper Mills, Raiply Timber, and Timsales Ltd.-- who are prepared to enter the forests inhabited by the Ogiek. A group of concerned NGOs --the US-based Digital Freedom Network, the Kenya-based Rights News and Features Service, and the Kenya Land Alliance-- launched a campaign in December 2000 to support the Ogiek's fair struggle. A web site is available ( http://www.ogiek.org ), which includes a complete explanation of the situation of the Ogiek, as well as interesting links and a model letter to be addressed to Kenyan authorities asking them to stop the destruction of the Mau Forests and the harassment of the Ogiek. Article based on information from: "Coalition Launches Online Campaign For Kenya's Ogiek People", by Tervil Okoko, Panafrican News Agency, 31/12/2000; http://www.ogiek.org
- Gold Medal to Shell: A mockery to Nigeria's peoples Oil companies are worldwide known for the negative environmental impact they produce both at the local and the global levels. While in the places where oil prospection and exploitation is performed, environmental destruction and social disruption is the rule, at the global level the burning of fossil fuels is one of the main causes of global warming. In this regard, Shell’s performance at the Niger Delta, in Nigeria, constitutes a paradigmatic example. Since 1958, when the company arrived in the region, the Ogoni indigenous people, who are the traditional inhabitants of the delta, have been suffering environmental devastation, the loss of their livelihoods, as well as high unemployment and poverty rates. Threats, abuses, imprisonment and murder have been also frequent in order to break popular resistance. Ken Saro Wiwa, the Ogoni leader murdered in 1995, remains a symbol of this struggle. It has been estimated that about 80,000 people had their villages destroyed and about 2,000 were killed by the state armed corps, which act in collusion with the interests of the company. Shell has been declared by local communities persona non grata in the area. The 'Human Rights & Environmental Operations Information on the Royal Dutch/Shell Group of Companies, 1996-1997' states: "There are approximately 7,000 square km of mangroves in Rivers and Bayelsa States, which contain 349 drilling sites, 700 kilometres of flowlines, 22 flow stations, and one terminal. According to a European Community study, the waters of the Niger Delta contain levels of petroleum ranging from 8 ppm to 60 ppm. ...these levels are hazardous to both aquatic and human life." To face increasing criticisms, Shell recently launched a campaign --"Profits and Principles. Is there a choice?"-- in influential Northern press media, trying to portray itself as environmentally sound and a defender of human rights (see http://www.wrm.org.uy/bulletin/40.html#Nigeria ) The campaign seems to have born fruit: Shell will receive next March the 2001 Gold Medal for International Corporate Environmental Achievement awarded by the World Environment Center (WEC). According to WEC’s web site, this prize is annually awarded "to a major multinational corporation with an outstanding, creative, sustained and well-implemented global environmental policy . . . The Jury cited Shell for its commitment to sustainable development, both as a guiding principle for its worldwide operations and as a cornerstone of the company’s management values". If one looks at Shell’s sad environmental and social record in Nigeria and other parts of the world such decision is impossible to understand. Nevertheless, considering who are involved in the WEC and which companies received the award in previous years, things become much more clear. In effect, according to its web site, "WEC continues to carry out its mission thanks to the generosity of its many funders". Many of the biggest oil, pulp and paper, biotechnology and chemical companies in the world are included as funders: British Petroleum, Occidental Petroleum, Exxon, Texaco, International Paper, Weyerhaeuser, Novartis, Monsanto, BASF, Dow Chemical, and, of course, the Royal Dutch Shell Group. In 1986 the precious Gold Medal was granted to Exxon, in 1989 to Dow Chemical, and in 2000 to International Paper! An action alert requesting letters of protest to be sent to the WEC is available at: http://www.wrm.org.uy/alerts/february01.html Article based on information from: Ikboparid D. Senewo, 11/1/2001, e-mail: senewo@juno.com ; http://www.wec.org
ASIA - India: The Dandeli dam project scandal Dam megaprojects worldwide have proved detrimental to the environment and to local communities, who directly bear the brunt of their consequences. Frequently corrupt practices are adopted by governments, consulting firms and companies --all interested in the realization of such projects-- to go ahead with them. This is what happened with the Dandeli dam project in India. During August-September 2000 the Indian NGO Environment Support Group denounced the "worst case of fraud in environmental decision making history in India". The international consulting firm Ernst and Young and Murdeshwar Power Corporation (MPC) --responsible for the Dandeli dam project across the Kali River in Uttara Kannada District-- were directly involved in the scandal. The consulting firm plagiarised the Environmental Impact Assessment used for a previous dam project --that of the Tattihalla Augmentation Scheme prepared by the Institute for Catchment Studies and Environmental Management-- and used it for the Dandeli dam case. In spite of the fraud, the State environmental authority proceeded to hold the Environmental Public Hearing on 21 August 2000 on the basis of this plagiarised report. During the Hearing even hired thugs representing the developer threatened those who questioned the validity of the process. During a whole month the government of Karnataka refused to accept the facts, but coverly advised MPC to present another EIA for the project to avoid further controversy. Nonetheless this was not the last chapter of the thriller . . . From September to October 2000 Tata Energy Research Institute --a well known private Indian research agency-- produced what it claimed to be an Environment Impact Assessment, but which in reality was but another farce. It is not believable that the preparation for the field study and the evaluation in the field of a vast area of biodiversity-rich forest, in a region of difficult access because of its topography and during the rainy season can be performed in just a month time. In a letter addressed in December 5th 2000 to Dr. R. K. Pachauri, President of TERI, the Environment Support Group expressed: "Shockingly the study done by TERI is of appalling standards, that do not meet even the poor EIA standards of India. Further, it arrives at conclusions that the dam will not have significant impact on the Dandeli forests without producing any supportive evidence whatsoever. Even the ecological information produced has been found to be ‘secondary and spurious’ by Dr. Ranjit Daniels, an authority on the biodiversity of the region, who reviewed the EIA on our request. Implications have been denounced in this shady business. The environmental authorities of Karnataka, and the State’s Industries Minister, Mr. R. V. Deshpande, who represents the Dandeli constituency, and is politically close to the project developer Mr. R.N. Shetty, are in an awkward situation. Indian civil society is claiming that the case needs to be brought to court. Article based on information from:
Environment Support Group, December 2000; e-mail:
esg@bgl.vsnl.net.in; web site:
http://www.altindia.net/esg/index.htm
- Indonesia: Pulp and paper industry menace in South Kalimantan The growth of the pulp and paper sector in Indonesia since the late '80s has been based on the clearcutting of vast area of forests --estimated in at least 800,000 hectares a year-- the spread of tree monocultures, the violation of indigenous peoples' land rights, and the granting of official subsidies to the companies, which often hide corrupt practices (see WRM Bulletin 41). In spite of its proven ecological, social and even economic unsustainability, the Indonesian pulp and paper sector continues to expand. The construction of a pulp plant in South Kalimantan planned for June 2001 is provoking concern among environmental organizations. The 600,000 tonne/year plant at Sungai Danau in the Kotabaru District, which would be the first in the region, is part of an official plan to attract various industries and foreign investment to the area. The South Kalimantan local government, that is enthusiastic about an industrialisation programme --which also includes mining and a new cement plant-- is backing the initiative. Transnational capitals are ready to make the investment. A millionaire joint venture has been formed between Indonesian timber company PT Marga Buana Bumi Mulia and a consortium of foreign investors from eight countries, which have not yet been completely identified. According to the national newspaper Kompas, the Holland-based company Akzo Nobel is involved in the project. A group of German companies, contacted by the South Kalimantan authorities last year during the Expo 2000 in Hannover, are supposedly also taking part in the initiative. PT Marga Buana Bumi Mulia is owned by Probosutedjo, step brother of former dictator Suharto, who is currently under investigation for the collapse of a bank he was heavily involved in, and has been severely questioned for the misuse of about US$15.5 million he received from the Reforestation Fund to a 70,000 hectare tree plantation in Menara Hutan Buana. Suharto's times seem not to be completely over regarding corruption in Indonesia. Raw material for the projected pulp mill will be obtained from 240,000 hectares of plantations of acacia, pines, and albizia, 80,000 of which are owned by Probosutedjo. However it is feared that, as usually happens, timber from natural forests in East and Central Kalimantan will also be used, since most forests in South Kalimantan have already been cut down. The promise of employment and prosperity for local communities could not be absent. A local official is reported to have made the absurd claim that the plant will employ 20,000 people in the construction phase and 200,000 workers once operational. But as a matter of fact no-one knows exactly what will happen with the new plant in relation to jobs. It has not been revealed who are funding the initiative and who is responsible for the consultancy work, but the German Export Credit Agency is known to be involved. Even though a spokesperson of the local Forestry Department dismissed NGOs' fears that the new plant in South Kalimantan would generate the same kind of problems as the Indorayon plant in North Sumatra, according to the history of this industry in Indonesia it is reasonable to expect that negative environmental and social impacts will occur. Concerned NGOs are preparing a national workshop on "Export Credit Agencies and the pulp and paper industry in Indonesia", to take place next April. Local people and NGOs of regions with pulp and paper mills will be present. The event is considered a strategic meeting to fight the pulp and paper industry and in particular to stop the new project. Article based on information from: Titi Soentoro, 2/2/2001, e-mail: euron@indo.net.id ; Liz Chidley, Down to Earth Campaign, 18/1/2001; e-mail: dtecampaign@gn.apc.org
- Asian Development Bank subsidising deforestation in Laos Lao government officials, international aid agencies and forestry consultants are almost unanimous in claiming that large-scale reforestation is urgently needed in Laos to address the problems associated with deforestation. Yet, under the Asian Development Bank's US$11.2 million "Industrial Tree Plantation" project, forests are being further destroyed and replaced by monoculture plantations. The beneficiaries are private companies such as BGA Lao Plantation Forestry Ltd, which is currently establishing 50,000 hectares of eucalyptus plantations in Khammouane and Bholikhamsay provinces. The timber from the plantations will be exported as wood chips to Japan via the deep sea port of Cua Lo near Vinh in Vietnam. BGA has received direct or indirect subsidies from the governments of Laos and Japan as well as from the Asian Development Bank. Without these subsidies the project would probably not be commercially viable. As it is the subsidies are accelerating deforestation. The Lao government handed over the land for the plantation rent-free for the US$30 million, 50-year project in return for a 5 per cent share in the project. The government then bought a further 10 per cent share in the scheme. Under Lao Forestry Law plantations are exempt from land tax, and BGA pays only 5 per cent income tax on its operations. The government has allowed BGA to carry out the land allocation programme, in the areas where the company plans to establish plantations. A representative of BGA explained, "BGA does the land allocation. So far 10 villages have been mapped." When asked whether any villagers were reluctant to have plantations on their land, he replied, "No. We did the presentation, so no one said no." The three companies originally forming BGA were: General Finance (a Thai finance company); GF-Brierley, a 50-50 joint venture between General Finance and Brierley Investments Limited (founded in New Zealand, but now registered in Bermuda with its head office in Singapore) and Asia Tech (a Thai plantation company). GF-Brierley also held a 22 per cent share in Asia Tech. With the onset of the Thai financial crisis in mid-1997, Asia Tech pulled out of the project. General Finance was one of 56 finance companies closed in 1997 by the Thai government because of mounting bad loans. In August 1998, Thailand's central bank filed criminal charges against six executives of General Finance. The six were charged with extending US$8 million in loans without proper valuation of the collateral. Brierley and the Lao Government have thus become the only partners in BGA. The head of General Finance, Narongchai Akrasanee apparently played a key role in laying the foundations for BGA's investment. As well as being director of several other Thai and regional companies, he has been advisor to several Thai Prime Ministers and in 1997 Narongchai was the Thai commerce minister. In March 1997, he took part in a three-day official visit to Vietnam with the Thai foreign minister, Prachuab Chiyasarn. According to a report in the Bangkok Post, the Thais "expressed great interest in Routes 8 and 9". Route 8 links Thailand's Nakhon Phanom province with Laos's Khammouane and Vietnam's port city of Vinh, and its rehabilitation was crucial for exporting wood chips from the BGA project. The Japanese government funded the rebuilding of Route 8. During his Vietnam trip, Narongchai also discussed the problem of delays in exporting goods caused by bureaucratic red tape at Lao and Vietnamese borders. The Asian Development Bank subsequently arranged a series of studies and workshops to discuss ways of alleviating delays at customs, and in November 1999 the transport ministers of Thailand, Laos and Vietnam signed an agreement aimed at removing the restrictions on transporting goods between the three countries. When BGA completes its wood chip factory, electricity will come from the nearby 210 megawatt Theun Hinboun dam. Funded to the tune of US$60 million by the Asian Development Bank, the dam was completed in 1998. Since the dam was closed it has caused massive problems for people living nearby, who have seen the fisheries in the river destroyed along with their livelihoods. In 1999, BGA received funding under the ADB's Industrial Tree Plantation project, and last year 70 per cent of BGA's expenses came in the form of concessionary loans from the ADB project. So far BGA has only established around 650 hectares of plantations, but villagers are already seeing their swiddens and forests converted to monoculture eucalyptus plantations. In Ban Lao Kha, BGA cleared areas of dense natural forest before planting eucalyptus trees. Villagers in Ban Lao Luang report that they have to walk further to collect mushrooms and other forest products, and wildlife such as mice and birds have moved to remaining forest areas away from the plantations. BGA sprays the regenerating forest between the rows of eucalyptus trees three times a year with the herbicide glyphosate, making sure that the plantations remain monocultures. By Chris Lang, e-mail: http://chrislang.org
- Malaysia: Blockade against logging in Sarawak forests The struggle of the Penan and other indigenous peoples of Sarawak to defend their ancestral lands and culture, is a very long and hard one. A way through which the Penan have expressed their resistance is the construction of blockades to prevent logging companies entering the forest. Even though to the viewpoint of the authorities this kind of actions constitute the so called "Penan problem", as a matter of fact the real problem is the official attitude, deaf to the claims of the Penan and friendly towards Malaysian and foreign logging companies that invade their lands and destroy the forest. Last January another round of anti-logging protests was launched by two Penans' longhouses in the Upper Baram region. They are opposing the activities of a timber company trespassing their territory. A group of about 120 people --comprising men, women and children-- erected a blockade across a timber track leading to the longhouses at Long Sayan and Long Belok in Sungai Tutoh. Penan chief Ajang Kiew Ajang expressed in an interview in Marudi that the road was barred to prevent the timber workers from entering a disputed forest region. More than 30 bulldozers and tractors and other heavy machinery have been sent to the area. "We depend on these forests for our survival as we have no land of our own. We have no choice but to stop them by force" he said. Ajang added that the company failed to honour an agreement signed in October 1997, according to which a previously-held negotiation was needed for the company to enter the area. He also denounced that their appeals to the Government to help them and give them legal protection, and recognise their native customary rights over their ancestral land, were completely ignored. Even though no physical violence has occurred until now it is feared that, as has happened many times before, the Penan may become victims of repression by the State police, which acts in collusion with the company. Article based on information from: "Penans protest against logging in Upper Baram" by Stephen Then, The Star, 12/1/2001.
CENTRAL AMERICA - Belize: Where forests can still be saved Much of the Belizean territory is still covered by forests, which host an enormous diversity in plant and animal life. Those forests have however been exploited for centuries in an unsustainable manner. What the forest hides is the fact that the most commercially valuable hardwood species have all but disappeared, particularly mahogany. In spite of the fact that the mahogany tree is emblematic to Belize --the national tree and prominent in its national flag-- the colonial history of the country really begins with the exploitation of another tree: logwood (Haematoxylum campechianum). Most of the logwood trees were cut and exported to Europe from the late 1500s to the mid 1800s to be used as a dye for the European textile industry. The trade was so profitable that pirates attacked Spanish and English ships loaded with this cargo. A single load of 50 tons of logwood was worth more than an entire year's cargo of other merchandise. Loggers --and slaves-- worked in terrible conditions. According to Alan K. Craig (Caribbean Studies Vol. 9: 53-62, 1969), "swampy conditions in the early logwood camps were unbearable. Crude living quarters were constructed on raised platforms amidst clouds of mosquitoes. During the rainy season, a logwood cutter stepped out in the morning into two or more feet of crocodile infested water and remained there all day." Coincidental with the discovery of cheaper, aniline dyes obtained from coal tar --which marked the disappearance of logwood as a dye-- the famous furniture maker Thomas Chippendale decided in the mid 1700s to use mahogany in the furniture he produced. His success resulted in a huge demand of mahogany by the furniture industry and loggers in Belize combed the country to cut and export this new "red gold". Given that no investment was made in road infrastructure, logs were transported to ports floating down the rivers. As mahogany was the only desirable species there was no clearcutting and therefore the forest cover remained almost unchanged, but one of its major and dominant components all but disappeared. The wide acceptance in the US of chewing gum --based on the sap of the chicle tree (Manilkara zapota)-- gave Belize's forests a new opportunity of providing employment and export earnings, but this had also an ending when natural chicle was substituted by synthetic vinyl gum. As in many other tropical countries, when travelling around Belize, it becomes patently obvious that all the wealth generated by logwood, mahogany and chicle must be somewhere else, because it is obviously not there. Now other processes --again linked to export earnings-- are putting new pressures on the forest, particularly three large scale industrial monocrops: sugar cane, bananas and citrus, which have resulted in the clearance of important areas of forest. Additionally, industrial shrimp farming and tourism have resulted in the destruction of some of the mangroves which protect the coastline from the frequent hurricanes. In spite of the above, the fact is that Belize still has important forest areas which can be rehabilitated and this is a positive starting point. Much will depend on the capacity of the government in solving the serious unemployment and poverty situation which is being faced by too many Belizeans. The whole history of the country is proving that an export-oriented economy is not a long term solution. In words of Barry and Vernon --authors of "Inside Belize"-- the country "has an opportunity to avoid many of the mistakes that have wreaked such environmental and economic havoc elsewhere in the region. Unlike developed countries at the curative stage in environmental conservation, Belize can still employ primarily preventive measures to preserve its ecostability ... The challenge facing the nation is to advance economically while at the same time recognizing the ecological boudaries of economic progress." Article based on information from: Tom Barry with Dylan Vernon.- 'Inside Belize. The essential guide to its politics, economy, society, and environment.' New Mexico, Resource Center Press, 1995; http://daphne.palomar.edu/wayne/ecoph4.htm ; http://daphne.palomar.edu/wayne/ecoph13.htm
SOUTH AMERICA - Colombia: "Tailor-made" legislation for Smurfit Private commercial tree plantations began to be implemented in Colombia in the 1960s. Long-fibre wood commercial plantations --pine and cypress-- are mostly located in the West of the country, in the Departments of Antioquía, Caldas, Quindio, Risaralda, Valle and Cauca, while in the central zone --in the Departments of Cundinamarca and Boyacá-- there is a dominance of Eucalyptus globulus. Impacts resulting from large scale tree monocultures in that country have been denounced since the 1970s. A research from that time, ordered by the Colombian State itself to evaluate the effects of conifer plantations in the Department of Cauca reached the conclusion that they were destroying natural ecosystems. Additionally, during the 1990s tree plantations in watersheds of importance for water supply were banned in several municipalities, while several forestry companies were fined for having burnt the forests to give place to plantations. In spite of that, large scale plantations continue being promoted under the influence of the globalization model and with support from government authorities and internacional credit agencies. One of the most relevant actors has been Smurfit Cartón de Colombia, which is responsible for the environmental damages provoked by the felling of the forests of the Biogeographic Chocó Region, the pollution of the River Cauca and air pollution in the city of Yumbo. The activity of this company in Colombia started in 1957, when Celulosa y Papel de Colombia S.A. (Pulpapel) was created. It was integrated by the Instituto de Fomento Industrial (IFI), Cartón de Colombia and Container Corporation of America, a subsidiary of Mobil. Later on, Container sold its shares to Cartón de Colombia and the company adopted the name Smurfit Cartón de Colombia. The firm is part of the multinational Jefferson Smurfit Group plc, with headquarters in Ireland, which is one of the biggest producers of paper-based packaging in the world, with operations in twenty countries. Most of its profits are made in Latin America. In 1993, for example, 70% of Smufit's profits came from Colombia, Mexico and Venezuela. Why has Smurfit chosen these countries and Colombia specifically? Apart from the good growth rates of pine plantations, the weakness of environmental controls and the low cost of labour --due to the employment of informal workers and subcontractors-- one capital reason has been the capacity of Smurfit --resulting from its powerful influence on government-- to achieve the passing of legislation beneficial to its interests. To begin with, Law 99 of 1993 allocated a place to the forestry private sector in the National Environmental Council. The Colombian Association of Plantation Companies (Asociación Colombiana de Reforestadores - ACOFORE), created at Smurfit's iniciative, obviously nominated Smurfit to occupy that seat. Additonally there are several legal benefits that favour Smurfit, some of them almost ridiculous. For instance, the so called Forestry Incentive Certificates (Certificados de Incentivo Forestal – CIF), approved in 1993 as a "recognition of the Colombian State to the positive externalities of reforestation resulting from its enviornmental and social benefits", plantation projects using exotic species are granted the same benefits as those using native species, whenever "it is shown by scientific studies and applied research that the used species has exceptional qualities to create a forest cover and for the conservation and regulation of waters". Taking into account the proven negative effects of fast-growth tree monocultures on water dynamics in watersheds, the above is difficult to imagine. Nevertheless, the company is able to achieve such "scientific proofs" and benefits from the CIF. Smurfit also benefits from different kinds of tax breaks for promoting what the legislation erroneously calls "reforestation". For example: a discount of 20% in rent taxes on new plantations, an 80% deduction in the value of the taxable products from the harvest, tax exemptions on technical services related to tree plantations, established by the 1995 Budget Bill. Colombia's forestry policy has taken an alarming course. On the one hand, there is no effective protection of the huge forest diversity existing in the vast territory of the country --also affected by illegal crops and by the measures to combat them-- and on the other hand, tree monocultures are promoted, even though they constitute a direct cause of deforestation and forest degradation in Colombia and worldwide. Additionally, laws are passed "tailor-made" for Smurfit and large-scale "reforesters", while farmers --especially small ones-- are left on their own at the mercy of market and atmospheric conditions. All this in a scenario dominated by a violent conflict at the national level, whose basic cause is precisely the unfair land tenure system existing in the country. In neighbouring Venezuela, Smurfit has already faced severe conflicts with local communities provoked by its tree monocultures (see WRM Bulletins 18, 20, 22 and 23). In Colombia too, the activities of Smurfit are generating increasing opposition, such as that being carried out by the Grupos Ecológicos de Risaralda, a province where the company already owns 10% of the land. In fact, it would be difficult to expect any other reaction than that of opposing an activity which, in order to benefit but a few, generates so many environmental and social impacts to so many people. Article based on information from: "Smurfit Cartón Colombia y las plantaciones forestales. Caso colombiano" by Herney Patiño Ríos, Grupos Ecológicos de Risaralda (see full text in Spanish at: http://www.wrm.org.uy/countries/Colombia/Smurfit.html ); Joe Broderick, "El imperio de cartón. Impacto de una multinacional papelera en Colombia", Planeta Colombiana Editorial S.A., Santafé de Bogotá, 1998.
- Ecuador: Action to save mangroves in Guayas Industrial shrimp farming is one of the direct causes of the deforestation of mangroves in the tropics. In Ecuador the level of destruction caused by the 1970s and mid 1980s shrimp production boom continues unabated, even though a law for the protection of mangroves was approved in 1995. Nowadays there are in Ecuador 207,000 hectares of ponds which have affected 70% of the country's mangrove area and practically all of its estuaries in the Pacific Ocean shore. Local economies have been disrupted. The successive Ecuadorian governments have been supporting this destructive activity --trumpetted as the "Blue Revolution"-- by granting it land concessions, building infrastructure to favour the transport of the products, offering subsidies, etc. The "Trolley" Law passed in August 2000 establishes that present beneficiaries of concessions in mangroves and beaches where shrimp ponds are built can become owners of the land. This meant the complete loss of sovereignty of the Ecuadorian state over such a valuable resource. In December 2000 the Constitutional Court declared 22 articles inconstitutional, among them Nr. 164, which granted the property of beaches and bays to the shrimp industry. A new case of destruction has been recently denounced by the members of a local crab-catchers association. This time it is at the Parroquia Naranjal in the western Province of Guayas. At a place called "Granja del Mar" near the River San Pablo, mangroves are being cur down for the construction of shrimp ponds. The above is happening in spite of the fact that in July 2000 the Crab-catchers Association "6 de Julio" was granted by the Ministry of Environment a concession for the use of 1,666 hectares of mangroves. To their surprise, their legally-obtained concession area was invaded by outside agents --presumably linked to the shrimp industry-- who have already destroyed 70 hectares of mangroves with the aim of setting up industrial shrimp farming infrastructure. Local dwellers have requested the intervention of the environmental authorities and of the Forest Agency of Guayas, but the situation still remains unchanged, and destruction continues. The Ecuadorian National Coordination for the Defense of Mangroves -- a coalition of environmental NGOs and local communities involved in mangrove management created to unite efforts to that aim-- are asking for international solidarity to defend this precious ecosystem, which is also the source of livelihoods for a local community. Those interested in expressing their support, please contact: FUNDECOL fundecol@ecuanex.net.ec Article based on information from: The Late Friday News, 76th Edition, 13/1/01; Cecilia Chérrez, Acción Ecológica, 18/12/2000; FUNDECOL, Press Release, 4/1/2000; e-mail: fundecol@ecuanex.net.ec
- Guyana: Transnational mining companies' impacts on people and the environment Inner land in Guyana consists of a 150 kilometre wide tropical rainforest, mostly untouched. However, the official perception since the ‘70s of mining as essential for "development", and the opening of the country’s economy --with the subsequent promotion of the exploitation of natural resources, especially timber and minerals-- to face the increasing foreign debt and satisfy the conditions of the 1991 structural adjustment programme imposed by the IMF and the World Bank, have paved the way to transnational companies. Thanks to the generous grating of huge areas for timber and mining exploitation, they are making big business and, at the same time, destroying the environment and causing severe problems to indigenous peoples (see WRM Bulletin 17). The results of a report published last year on the impact on mining in the Upper Mazaruni Amerindian District of Guyana confirm this general assertion for a particular region of the country. The Upper Mazaruni River region is a luxurious forest which constitutes the last refuge of the Akawaio (Kapon) and Arenuca (Pemon) indigenous peoples, whose ancestral territory also encompasses parts of the Gran Sabana in Venezuela, and northern Roraima State in Brazil. Their way of living in harmony with the environment has been traditionally based on seasonal migrations between the lower and upper reaches of the Mazaruni and Kamarang Rivers to obtain their livelihoods from hunting, fishing and farming. Since the end of the decade of 1950 indigenous peoples’ authorities of the region have been claiming to the successive governments against the invasion of their lands by miners. In 1959 one-third of the Upper Mazaruni Amerindian Reservation was gazetted as a mining district, and the remaining area renamed Upper Mazaruni Amerindian District. At the beginning they were "prokknocker" (small-scale miners), and nowadays they are powerful foreign companies. About 37 transnational mining companies --most of them Canadian-- have been registered in Guyana. Several out of them have been and are present in Upper Mazaruni. Golden Star Resources and Vanessa Ventures, both from Canada, are the ones that have caused the most environmental impact and concern to local communities. Missile dredging (enormous vacuum cleaners shaped like missiles, that are attached to river dredges to remove alluvial deposits) is a normal practice for mining in the region. These dredges destroy river banks and nearby forests, and increase sedimentation causing severe losses in the fish populations, and drastical changes in the hydrology and the geomorphology of the river. Mining companies in Upper Mazaruni also use mercury to maximise gold production, even though it is well known since decades that mercury, both as an effluent and air emission source, provokes serious effects on the ecosystems and human health. According to the authors of the report, the environmental impacts of mining in the area are apparent: the water is discoloured and heavy with sediments, piles of debris accumulate at the river banks, some of which have disappeared because of missile dredging. Environmental Impact Assessment required by law exists only on paper. The destruction of natural resources local dwellers depend upon has impacted on indigenous people’s every day life, especially in their provision of food. It is difficult for them to find enough fish in the once rich Mazaruni River. The noise caused by mining and unsustainable hunting by miners have provoked a decrease in the richness and abundance of game animals. The disruption of local communities' economy has gone along with the emergence of serious social problems as alcoholism, sexual abuses, prostitution and racism. In sum, the opening of Guyana to foreign companies from the mid-1980s has caused destruction in the country’s tropical forests --a rare case of virtually untouched ecosystems until then-- and the complete disregard of the Amerindians that have lived in these forests for centuries using their resources in a sustainable way. This process continues to the detriment of Guyana’s forests and indigenous peoples, who are carrying out actions to revert such situation. What used to be a heavenly place, where local people could live according to their cultural patterns, is becoming an example of destruction. What for? For the benefit of a few megacompanies. Who are responsible? The companies themselves --that act in a depredatory way, taking profit of favourable circumstances-- and the successive Guyanese governments, which have shown to be unable to control their activities, and especially unwilling to respect and guarantee indigenous territorial rights, which is at the root of the problem. Those interested in obtaining a
copy of the above mentioned report, which includes testimonies of indigenous
people, as well as pictures and maps, are invited to contact the Amerindian
Peoples Association ( apacoica@guyana.net.gy
) or the Forest Peoples Programme Article based on information from: "Indigenous peoples, land rights and mining in the Upper Mazaruni", A Report by Upper Mazaruni Amerindian District Council, Amerindian Peoples Association of Guyana, Forest Peoples Programme, Global Law Association, Nijmegem, 2000; "Undermining the forests", FPP-Philippine Indigenous Peoples Links-WRM, January 2000; The World Guide 1997/98.
- Perú: Who pays the bill for oil exploitation "accidents"? The spill of 5,500 barrels of oil at the Marañón River that occurred on October 3rd 2000 in the heart of the Peruvian Amazon, at Urarinas and Parinari Districts in the Province of Loreto, constitutes an ecological disaster, whose consequences are still provoking damages to the environment and to the indigenous population of the area. The spill affected the Pacaya Samiria Reserve, which is the biggest protected area in the country. Responsible for both the accident and the present situation is the transnational Pluspetrol based in Argentina. It has been estimated that the spill has affected some 20,000 people, many of whom belonging to the Cocamas-Cocamillas ethnic group. The pollution of water has completely altered their everyday life, since they drink the water of the river, bathe and play in it. Fishing, which is their basic resource, is impeded by the contamination of the river and the death of its fauna. Cases of diarrhea and skin diseases have spread. The doctors hired by the company and those of the Ministry of Health cannot cope with all the patients. Additionally, it has been denounced that part of the medicines sent to the area never reached the place and were illegally sold in Iquitos. "The company has not wished to help us at any moment, only with a little food and with very, very little drinking water", expressed the local priest Miguel Angel Cadenas. According to testimonies of missionary nuns working in the area, the food provided by Pluspetrol is of low quality and provisions were not enough even as a basic diet for all the affected people. Instead of truly assisting local people affected by the disaster it caused, Pluspetrol is more concentrated in trying to promote a "green" and "humanitarian" image of itself to the public. Those who receive the scarce quantity of food and water supplied by the company have to sign a document of "gratitude" to Pluspetrol for the support received. Additionally, the company will soon be presenting an Environmental Impact Assessment, according to which the presence of oil in the Marañón River’s waters has decreased after the accident, which is difficult to believe. National NGOs have denounced that this is not the first time Pluspetrol is involved in this kind of problems. In November 1999 an oil pipeline belonging to the company broke in the Pucayacu ravine, in the Chambira River. A number of Urarina indigenous people got sick and even died. They are claiming that the contracts with Pluspetrol should be reviewed and that oil transportation be strictly controlled. The environmental consequences of oil exploitation in the tropics --among which heavy metal pollution due to waste material from the wells, massive flares in the forest and risk of explosion caused by gas escapes-- and the social impacts it provokes, clearly show that the above referred oil spill is not just an "accident." In the calculation of oil companies, this is only an expected risk. But it is always indigenous and other local people, and their forests and waters, who have to bear the costs. Article based on information from: Resistance - Oilwatch Network Bulletin Nr. 13, February 2001, e-mail: oilwatch@uio.satnet.net ; Wilfredo Ardito Vega, Instituto de Defensa Legal, 29/1/2001; e-mail: wilfredo@idl.org.pe
OCEANIA - Papua New Guinea: Social and environmental destruction by logging What follows are extracts from the findings of an environmental and social impact assessment of logging operations in the west coast of Manus province, carried out in 1997 and during January 2000, which details the impacts of logging. Logging has had a severe impact on food and other resources which form the basis of the livehood of many forest dependent people. In terms of food resources, wild meat and fish represent vital sources of protein. Local communities state that the availability of wild meat has declined in the logging areas due to wild animals migrating towards the eastern part of Manus island. Fish, another vital source of protein, have also been severely affected by logging. The large quantities of soil sediments washed away from the areas into streams and rivers causes high turbidity level and siltation, which, combined with run-off of diesel oil used by logging machinery and chemicals employed to treat the timber, are causing dramatic declines in fish stocks. There have also been numerous instances where the logging company has bulldozed fruit and vegetable gardens located in or on the edge of the forest and destroying wild fruits and other edible forest plants. The loss of food and the pollution of water sources leads to health problem amongst the forest dependent-communities, with women and children tending to suffer the most. The health clinic records have shown increased malnutrition due to the decline in wild meat and fish harvesting. Community values are being undermined and the fabric and integrity of forest communities disrupted by extractive logging and by the sebsequent reliance on the cash economy for essential daily products such as food. Social tensions within and between communities are often exacerbated as a result. The social division caused by the arrival of large-scale logging is one of the major negative impacts identified by the landowners throughout the west coast of Manus area. Logging has created a new distinction at the community level between the 'haves' and the 'have-nots' based on the sudden influx of cash from royalties. Because of the complex land tenure structures in Melanesia, and the need for logging companies to identify "landowners" in order to obtain national government licences to log, negotiations are often based on expediency and restricted to a few key individuals rather than taking place with all legitimate landowners. In this way, a few individuals can undermine the whole structure of customary land tenure in return for cash. Communities rarely see the promised infrastructure developments such as schools, clinics and permanent roads, other than logging roads. As younger community members seek jobs in the logging camps, the drain of labour not only deprives the communities of needed hands in agriculture, hunting, fishing and cultural activities, but also contributes to other negative sides of the extractive industry, namely alcoholism, drug abuse and prostitution. Due to insufficient safety standards, lack of training, long working hours and pressure, the accident rate has been high. A number of high risk accidents have occurred, taken lives of chainsaw operators and other workers. The company has failed to provide insurance cover to those who work tirelessly with the company on very low salaries. Women seem to have been the worst affected. As many men go to find employment in the logging industry, a newly-emerging division of labour requires the women who remain to cope with previously male tasks and to work harder and longer hours to collect water and forest products, both of which are scare because of logging operations. The author of the study concludes that logging operations "are causing irreversible damage to the forest resources, including flora and fauna, and watershed integrity and soil quality. No benefits are reaching the customary landowners who depend on the forest resource. Logging has destroyed their means of subsistance and livehood. ... (The) timber industry has made life harder for landowners in Papua New Guinea. The landowners face destruction of their environment and also of their society. Thus the future for the next generation is uncertain ...". Article based on information from: Cain Lomai Pwesei.- "Environmental and Social Impact Assessment of Logging Operations in the West Coast of Manus Area, Manus Province, Papua New Guinea", January 2001. The full summary of the study is available at: http://www.wrm.org.uy/countries/PapuaNG/logging.html
THE WORLD BANK, FORESTS AND PEOPLE The World Bank can play either a positive or a negative role regarding forest conservation, and much will depend on the final forest policy it will adopt later this year and on its implementation. A draft strategy has as yet not been publicly circulated for discussion. At the same time, the Bank is carrying out a revision of its resettlement policy, which is of crucial importance for many people who may result "resettled", as well as for forests which may be degraded as a result. Serious deficiencies have been noted in the current draft produced by the Bank. At the same time, the Bank appears not to be willing to make public its position on genetically modified organisms in general or on GMO trees in particular, which may result in extensive impacts on forests and forest peoples. The following three articles aim at sharing our concerns on these three important matters. - The World Bank's broken promises on its forest policy review The World Bank's Forest Policy Implementation Review and Strategy process (FPIRS) is entering its final stages. After having received input from numerous stakeholders throughout the world, the Bank suddenly appears to be less willing to share its draft new policy for meaningful input from all those engaged in the process, before presenting the policy to the Bank's Board of Executive Directors for its final approval. This situation has generated great concern among a large number of NGOs. After learning that the World Bank would not release its draft strategy and policy until it has already been sent to Senior Management, some 84 NGOs wrote to the IUCN, which was facilitating the consultation process, urging it to demand that the World Bank change the process. Another letter was then sent to the World Bank's Vice President Ian Johnson. After expressing that the regional consultations implemented by the Bank "were promising steps towards a strengthened new Forest Policy", the letter noted that "the follow-up to these positive steps raises disturbing questions about the World Bank’s good faith in seriously consulting with civil society organizations. There has been little feedback and communication from the World Bank on the Forest Policy once the regional consultations were completed." The NGO letter further stated that the World Bank publicly committed itself "to prepare a draft Forest strategy document which would be widely disseminated and discussed with stakeholders . . . before being presented to World Bank management. This promise appears to have been broken. On Christmas eve, a draft discussion strategy paper was sent to members of the Technical Advisory Group for their January meeting with the request not to make it public." According to the letter, "it was only after strong concerns were voiced by NGOs as well as IUCN at a meeting with the World Bank’s Environment Department on January 16, 2001 that the draft discussion document on a strategy was placed on the World Bank’s website. However, we have not been given any assurances that revisions to the Forest Policy and Strategy will be made publicly available before their presentation to the World Bank’s Board of Executive Directors. At present, it is even unclear if World Bank staff is preparing a non-binding Forest Strategy or a new cross-sectoral Operational Policy on Forests." The NGO letters were followed on 29 January by a letter from IUCN's Acting Director General Simon N. Stuart to Ian Johnson. Stuart reminded him about the major aim of the forest policy consultation process: "It is important to remember --he said-- that the objective of the FPIRS process is not just to get a new policy formally adopted by the Board. Rather, the objective of the entire process underlying the FPIRS has been to build consensus on a forest policy and strategy that will have wide acceptance inside and outside that Bank so that it will stand a better chance of being well implemented than the 1991 policy/strategy. The proposed new strategy relies heavily on building partnerships both inside and outside the Bank in order to capitalize on the World Bank’s comparative advantage and accomplish more than it could on its own. Those external partnerships will not materialize if the Bank becomes too introverted in the later phase of the policy/strategy development process.". IUCN’s Director also reminded the Bank that "the original Consultation Process document on FPIRS web site, which was agreed to with IUCN, indicates that the World Bank would share a copy of the strategy draft with all concerned stakeholders before its approval by World Bank senior management. During each of the regional consultations, the World Bank staff also indicated a clear intention to re-engage with the participants of the regional consultations and share a draft for their review and comment." Ian Johnson from the World Bank responded to IUCN, and the NGOs which had appealed to it, on February 7 and what follow are his remarks to IUCN's recommendations: 1. IUCN recommends that the World Bank publicly release a complete draft text of any revised Operational Policy on forests. "The Bank remains committed to posting the revised version of Annex 5C (recommended revisions to OP 4.36 Forestry) on the FPIRS website as soon as this document is ready. We agree that it is important for various stakeholders to evaluate and provide feedback on these recommended revisions. A revised Annex 5C will be posted shortly." 2. IUCN recommends that the FPIRS team should extend the deadline for feedback beyond February 15th. "We are encouraging interested individuals to send their comments as early as possible, with a suggested date of February 15, so that comments can be fully taken into account in the revisions currently underway. However, comments and feedback on the documents posted on the website are welcome at any time in the process and will be given serious consideration at all times." 3. IUCN recommends that the FPIRS team compile a registry documenting each of the comments received, how they are or are not reflected in the revisions, and the rationale for that decision. "We will continue to track and compile all feedback being received by e-mail and comments sent for posting in the FPIRS Discussion Forum. We have been and continue to compile a registry of comments received and how they are reflected in the revisions being made to the documents. We will post a registry, or summary, of comments on the FPIRS website." 4. If the Bank does all these things, it should meet the expectations that it created in the original consultation process design and the regional consultations. Nevertheless, the World Bank should go one step further…IUCN recommends…that the FPIRS team release the revised strategy and policy after they have gone to CODE and before they go to the Board. "It is our intention to make a revised strategy and policy available before the Board presentation." With regard to Ian Johnson response on the first point, the fact is that the revised version of Annex 5 C is as yet (19 February) not available in the Bank's web site. IUCN's second recommendation is obviously linked to the first one. People need to read and study the revised version before making suggestions. The deadline should be changed and it's not enough to say that "comments and feedback on the documents posted on the website are welcome at any time in the process and will be given serious consideration at all times." Ian Johnson's response to IUCN's very precise 4th recommendation ("release the revised strategy and policy after they have gone to CODE and before they go to the Board") is so vague that it raises a huge question mark on whether the revised strategy will be open for discussion before its Board presentation or if the Bank's "intention" is to simply inform NGOs without providing a meaninful opportunity for comment. It appears that, unless something changes, the Bank will again have missed another opportunity --as IUCN's Director says-- "to build consensus on a forest policy and strategy that will have wide acceptance inside and outside that Bank so that it will stand a better chance of being well implemented than the 1991 policy/strategy." Article based on information from: NGO letter to Ian Johnson, 30 January 2001; IUCN letter to Ian Johnson, 29 January 2001; Ian Johnson's letter to IUCN, 7 February 2001. (The three letters are available at: http://www.wrm.org.uy/actors/WB/index.html#monitor )
- New World Bank Resettlement Policy Is Flawed The World Bank has been drafting a new resettlement policy for the past three years. After a long period of external consultation, a revised policy has now finally been submitted to the Bank's 'Committee on Development Effectiveness', but it was not accepted and is now to be reconsidered internally. A leaked copy of the draft policy shows that it retains serious deficiencies: - it makes less secure provisions for people who lack recognised rights to land than the previous policy - it falls far below the proposed standards of the World Commission on Dams - it makes a questionable distinction between voluntary and involuntary resettlement - it does not require improvements to the livelihoods or standards of living of those displaced NGOs are also indignant that the Bank has gone back on its promises to make public a 'matrix' which was to set out the reasons why the Bank has rejected civil society recommendations for strengthening the policy. The policy also has very serious implications for forest-dwelling peoples, particularly those affected by protected areas. The draft policy proposes a different process for those people whose livelihoods are adversely impacted by World Bank projects in conservation areas (para 3 b). In such cases, the communities are not to be consulted until project implementation instead of during the project preparation phase (para 7). Likewise provisions for those who are involuntary resettled (under para 3 a), such as being informed about their options and rights, being consulted about alternatives, provided with prompt compensation, ensured the timely sharing of information, infrastructural support, provisions of alternative livelihoods, and (where possible) replacement land for land lost, are *not* assured for those (under para 3b) whose livelihoods are restricted by protected areas (paras. 6, 10 and 12). Instead these people are only offered assurances that the borrower, without any obligation to consult with the affected peoples, will provide a 'draft process framework' during project appraisal and during implementation will provide a plan, 'acceptable to the Bank' (but not necessarily to the peoples themselves) (para 30) aimed at 'at least' restoring their livelihoods 'in real terms' (whatever that means) (para 7). Whereas those involuntarily resettled by other development schemes are assured that the borrower is obliged to develop one of three kinds of resettlement plan or framework, the details of which are set out in an Annex on 'Involuntary Resettlement Instruments', no such details are provided for those for whom the borrower only has to develop a 'draft process framework'. This kind of discrimination is unacceptable on both moral and legal grounds. Experience shows that the distinction that the policy seeks to draw between forced displacement and involuntarily 'restricted access' is both unfair and unfounded. Detailed studies of peoples affected by protected areas show how imposed restrictions on their livelihoods and effective loss of their lands may inevitably force people to relocate because their lives become inviable. Frequently, peoples whose lands are designated as protected areas are indigenous peoples, ethnic minorities, pastoral 'nomads' and marginalised forest-dwelling groups, whose traditional extensive systems of land use depend on their mobility over, and access to, large areas. Very often these peoples' rights to their territories are not recognised in national laws. These peoples deserve the same consideration and concern as those whose lands and livelihoods are expropriated by any other imposed developments. It is patently evident that the artificial distinction being drawn by the World Bank in paragraphs 3a) and 3b) is intended to 'panel proof' the World Bank against further complaints to the Inspection Panel such as that made about the 'Ecodevelopment' project in India. These kinds of manipulations benefit no one in the long term and will do lasting harm to the credibility of the World Bank. By Marcus Colchester, Forest Peoples Programme, 30/1/2001, e-mail: marcus@fppwrm.gn.apc.org
- Future Forest Policy must exclude GMO trees One of the issues that has not been addressed in the discussions about the World Bank's future Forest Policy and Strategy is that of the Bank's position regarding genetically modified organisms. This needs to be urgently addressed, particularly because the following information is generating concern within the environmental movement: - Although the subject of genetically modified organisms has become one of the most visible environmental debates, the World Bank’s latest annual environmental report chooses to be silent on the issue. - A closed-door meeting held on 5 December by President Wolfensohn with the Chief Executive Officers of the world’s leading biotechnology corporations seems to indicate that the institution is in the process of defining its role in promoting genetically modified agriculture, including forestry. Present at the meeting were the CEOs of Aventis, BASF, Bayer, Dow AgroSciences, Dupont, Emergent Genetics, Merial Limited, Monsanto, Seminis, Syngenta, Cargill and Mahyco - A report distributed at the Forest Policy regional consultation for Sub-Saharan Africa indicates that plantations of genetically modified trees are considered to be part of the solution of the world’s forest crisis: "If the remaining forest areas are to be preserved, it is important to recognize that future timber production will have to come from increased productivity of plantations supported by biotechnology gains…" The risks of biotechnology in the forestry sector are not yet well understood, but could be devastating. The long timeframes of tree plantations and the fact that they are often established in remote areas and in proximity of natural forest areas require serious examination of the potential threats to biodiversity from genetic pollution and invasiveness. In addition, a promotion of biotechnology in the forestry sector might accelerate inappropriate plantation development resulting in social problems and negative impacts on soils and water cycles which are well-documented. The World Bank can play a major role in protecting the World's forests. However, the use of GMO trees is not only no solution at all to that end but, on the contrary, could be the final blow against forests and the peoples that depend on them. The Bank's future forest policy must therefore exclude GMO trees from all Bank-funded activities. Article based on information from: Memorandum January 8, 2001 to Second Meeting of the TAG in Washington, D.C.- Korinna Horta, Ned Daly and Kay Treakle
- Sign on letter on erosion of safeguard standards Crucial bank policies are being revised at this moment. The Forest Peoples Programme is currently coordinating sign ons to a letter to be sent to all the Bank's Executive Directors. The deadline is Friday 23rd february. Comments and sign ons should be sent to Tom Griffiths at tom@fppwrm.gn.apc.org . The draft letter is available in our web site at http://www.wrm.org.uy/alerts/february01.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
