|
|
WRM Bulletin
|
|
|
THE FOCUS OF THIS ISSUE: Biodiversity, forests and people Biodiversity loss constitutes a
major threat to millions of people throughout the world and particularly in
the tropics, where peoples' livelihoods strongly depend on forests and their
biodiversity. At the same time, the increasing loss of biodiversity and
forests puts a question mark on humanity's future on Earth. The fact that
the Convention on Biological Diversity's Scientific Body (SBSTTA) has
recently addressed the forest issue provides a good opportunity to highlight
the problem seeking for solutions. We have therefore focused this WRM
Bulletin on the problem, looking at it from different perspectives and
particularly on how biodiversity loss affects people at the local level, who
are in fact protecting --in many cases against their governments-- what
governments have committed themselves to protect. OUR VIEWPOINT - Biodiversity loss: The issues that need to be addressed before it is too late The world is increasingly concerned over the disappearance of life forms on Earth and many organizations --governmental and non governmental-- appear to be trying to find solutions to the problem. However, in most cases they are failing, either because of implementing the wrong solutions --or more simply for not doing anything-- or because the political, economic and social causes which are at the root of the problem are not being adequately addressed. It is important to stress that, contrary to what many people believe, those most interested in the conservation of biodiversity are not environmental organizations but local communities, whose livelihoods and cultural survival to a large extent depend on the products and services provided by forests and other ecosystems. For them, the issue is not restricted to the conservation of certain species, but to the conservation of the entire ecosystem. In the specific case of tropical forests, local communities are facing a number of situations which are leading to the disappearance of the resources they depend upon. In most cases, they are struggling to protect their forest against government policies. Some of those policies aim at the large scale extraction of timber, oil or minerals lying within the territories of indigenous peoples and other local communities. This type of "development" results in widespread environmental destruction, while at the same time offering few benefits to local people, who end up in a far worse situation than before. Other policies aim at energy production and large areas are entirely destroyed or degraded by hydroelectric dams, while local people are "relocated" against their wishes, again in the name of "development". But probably one of the most disastrous policies --for local peoples and biodiversity-- is the opening up of the forest through road building, usually coupled with a colonization policy and with the concession of large tracts of forests to corporations. One of the most catastrophic examples of the above is that of the Brazilian Amazon. In the 1950s, the government opened up the forest under the slogan of "a land without men for men without land". This racist policy totally ignored the existence of indigenous peoples, who had inhabited the territory centuries before the creation of the Brazilian state. Indigenous people were murdered, repressed, died as a result of illnesses brought in by the colonizers and the result was the extermination of entire indigenous communities and the beginning of the widespread destruction of the Amazon forest that continues until today. Unfortunately, Brazil is but an example and similar situations are still occuring in most of the Amazonian countries and throughout the tropical regions of Africa, Asia and Oceania, with support from multilateral and bilateral Northern institutions and to the benefit of local elites and transnational corporations. If the above were taken into account and if the world's governments were honestly interested in the conservation of forests and their biodiversity, then the first issue they should be addressing is precisely that one: the recognition of the territorial rights of indigenous and other local peoples, whose interests are in line with forest conservation. Biodiversity experts working within the Convention of Biological Diversity are instead focusing on issues such as "invasive alien species" --which undoubtedly is an important problem-- while ignoring that the most dangerous "invasive alien species" for forests and forest peoples are those who open up the forest for "development" without taking into account that the forest is "a land with people". Experts should also be addressing the role played in the destruction of forests and biodiversity by institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, Regional Development Banks, Export-Credit and bilateral aid agencies, northern consultancies and corporations and many other actors --examples of whose activities are detailed in the articles below. However, to the view of most experts this would be "political" --not scientific-- and thus outside their mandate. But they are wrong, because unless those issues are addressed, most of their work will be useless in relation with the stated aim of conserving biodiversity. Biodiversity experts should also be trying to halt the spread of monocultures, which constitute a major threat to biodiversity, particularly in forest ecosystems. More and more tropical forest areas are being substituted by fast growing eucalyptus, pine, gmelina or acacia tree plantations and the disaster is being hidden under the name of "forest cover". Absurd as it may seem, a forest area converted to monoculture plantations is still considered to be a "forest" --according to the FAO definition-- thus hiding the destruction of millions of hectares of some of the most diverse environments on Earth. Unfortunately, biodiversity experts are still not even challenging this absurd definition. Finally, it is important to stress that governments are not seriously addressing what is probably the worst threat to global biodiversity: climate change. All the efforts aimed at conserving biodiversity at the local level will be almost totally useless if the industrialized North --and particularly the United States-- continue destroying the world's climate through their greenhouse gas emissions. And even worse, some governments --particularly those of the US, Canada, Japan and Australia-- are promoting the use of large scale tree monocultures as carbon sinks --in order to avoid the need to cut emissions-- thus increasing the problem of biodiversity loss. Biodiversity loss is not simply "happening": it is the necessary effect resulting from a number of causes and the problem will only be solved when those causes are effectively addressed. Which is something that will need to begin to happen very soon, or otherwise it could be too late.
LOCAL STRUGGLES AND NEWS AFRICA - Kenya: Who favours and who destroys forest biodiversity? Governments should be directly responsible for the conservation of the natural and cultural heritage of their respective countries and people. Nevertheless, what frequently happens in the South is that the authorities act in collusion with powerful internal and external interests, and to the detriment of the country’s biodiversity, and thus against the welfare of the population they are supposed to protect. This is what is going on in Kenya. Located in the east coast of Central Africa, Kenya holds a variety of landscapes: from tropical rainforests in the coastal plains to arid areas in the dry west plateau. Such diversity in nature goes together with the existence of different ethnic groups. Deforestation and desertification are two environmental problems severely affecting the country. Logging --both legally granted by concessions and illegal-- an inadequate policy towards protected areas, megaprojects like dams and mining, are all putting at risk the rich biodiversity of Kenya. In the meantime, the government has not only proved to be unable to stop the process, but has also been active in promoting it. The case of the highland Tinet forest area, inhabited from ancestral times by the Ogiek, is a paradigmatic example of environmental destruction and disregard to indigenous peoples' rights. In spite of having managed these forests 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 menaced them to get hold of their lands arguing that they are within the boundaries of a protected area included in the country's Forest Act. Nonetheless it is not a preservationist interest what moves the authorities. In Kenya there is a logging ban in force but three powerful companies --Pan African Paper Mills, Raiply Timber, and Timsales Ltd.-- are exempted from it, and prepared to enter the Tinet Forests once the Ogiek are expelled. Regarding protected areas it seems that the authorities have not learnt from past mistakes. In the mid-1970s, Massai residents of southern Kenya were abruptly relocated from land that was subsequently enclosed within the Amboseli National Park, one of the continent's most visited wildlife reserves. Deprived of their lands and as a desperate way of showing their protest, the Massai reacted by killing many of Amboseli's most prized tourist attractions, including dozens of leopards, elephants, and rhinos. Both the fauna and indigenous people suffered as a consequence of a mistaken approach with regard to biodiversity conservation. The announcement made by the government last February according to which many areas of forest reserves spread all over the country --totalling 67,150 hectares-- will be left without legal protection confirms that there is no clear policy for forest biodiversity conservation in Kenya. National environmental NGOs gathered in the Greenbelt have expressed their intention to present a formal objection to the proposed forest excisions, and the Kenya Forests Working Group is organizing an international campaign to oppose it. Severe droughts have affected the Kenyan territory in the last two years. Considering the connection existing between deforestation and the fall in rainfall patterns, the destruction of these forests would aggravate the problem and at the same time be detrimental to the flora and fauna they are home to. Megaprojects constitute another pending menace on the country’s biodiversity. For example the dam project on the Sondu Miriu River, one of the major rivers in the Lake Victoria Basin, is threatening local biodiversity. Even though the power station is scheduled to be operational in 2003, the diversion of the river will cause the disruption of the whole hydrological basin, with negative consequences on wildlife. Rare species, like the Colobus monkeys and hippopotamus, which depend on the river for their survival will be forced to seek a source of water at the lower populous Nyakwere plains disturbing their habitat. The government is backing the project and the Japan Bank for International Cooperation, together with a Norvegian and a South African company are giving financial and technical support to it. The NGO coalition Africa Waters Network has denounced this danger, and at the same time local villagers are resisting the project, which would mean the forced abandonment of their agricultural lands. Last but not least, mangroves situated in the coast near Mombasa on the Indian Ocean are in danger because of a titanium mining project by a Canadian firm. Kenyan organizations gathered in the Coast Mining Rights Forum have recently launched an international letter campaign, targetting the government and financial partners --the World Bank included-- denouncing the expected effects of mine exploitation in the area and demanding its suspension until a serious environmental impact assessment is performed. In sum: the answer to the question we have posed regarding biodiversity conservation in Kenya is clear. On one side there are local communities and environmental NGOs trying to protect the country's biodiversity. On the opposite site there are the authorities, transnational companies, international banks and "developers", whose actions result in its destruction. Article based on information from: http://www.globalresponse.org/gra.php?i=4/00 ; Lynette Obare, Forest Action Network, 6/3/2001, e-mail: lobare@hotmail.com ; Nabil El-Khodari, 27/2/2001, e-mail: khodari@yahoo.com ; Paula Palmer, 23/2/2001, e-mail: paulap@globalresponse.org ; WildNet, 17/2/2001, e-mail: wildnet@ecoterra.net
- Liberia: At the centre of it all is the indigenous community Liberia hosts the last two significant blocks of the remaining closed canopy tropical rainforest within the upper Guinea Forests of West Africa, which spans Ghana, Cote d’Ivoire, Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone. The original extent of tropical rainforest in the region is estimated at 727,900km2, but has shrunk to about 92,797km2 - about 12.7% of its original size! Liberian forests account for 44.5% of the remaining 92,797km2 followed by Cote d’Ivoire with 29.1%. Liberia’s rainforest is of incalculable value to the sub-region given the poor state of the remaining tracts of forest in all of humid West Africa. The forest hosts numerous endemic species and many others that are virtually extinct elsewhere in the region. It supports hundreds of species of birds, nine of which including the white-breasted guinea fowl (Agelastes meagridis) are endangered, large amounts of endemic fauna and flora and is a unique habitat for some of the rarest species in the world. The Jentink's duiker (the rarest in the world), pygmy hippopotamus (Cherosis liberensisis), Liberian mongoose (Liberictis kuhnii), several dozens of reptiles, including three types of crocodiles and at least eight poisonous snakes, inhabit Liberia’s forests. Although there has been no recent scientific survey of the forest, it is believed to abound with more than two thousand different types of flowering plants – 240 of which accounts for valuable timber species and hundreds with medicinal values. The fauna and flora of this region are distinct and conservation of its biological diversity is recognized as a global priority. Liberia is recovering from a savage civil war that left its economy and much of its infrastructures in ruins. Unemployment is high and more than 75% of the citizenry live in abject poverty. The country owes international lenders an estimated U$S 3 billion dollars and has not benefited much from international since of the war ended in 1997. Also corrupt government officials squander most of the little aid trickling in. The government has turned to the forest, which is now its second largest foreign exchange earner next to the maritime programme. Pressure on the Liberian forest has intensified in the last few years, primarily due to an upsurge in logging activities. Although other factors mitigate the problem of deforestation in Liberia, logging and agricultural expansion pose the gravest threat to our rainforest. Almost every significant national forest land, including areas previously designated as national parks or forest reserves, has been granted as concessions to logging companies who operate with virtually no monitoring from the forestry authorities. Logging operations have reached an unprecedented proportion, with approximately 60% of the country's forests now severely degraded. The country’s biodiversity is further threatened because deforestation has effectively separated the two blocks of the rain forest further jeopardizing its overall ecological integrity. The lost of the forest is taking a serious toll on nature here. The animal population is noticeably declining with the lost of forest cover. The pygmy hippopotamus, elephant, leopard, etc. are almost extinct. Rare sightings by villagers are often difficult to confirm, as the surviving population seems to be always on the move in search of dense forest regions. Not only log extraction and harvesting practices are disturbing the forest. Roads constructed by logging companies into once remote forest regions make movement of hunters easier thus exposing already endangered species to further threat. The bush meat trade is flourishing with all its negative consequences for the country’s biodiversity. The logging companies are not the only people responsible for the destruction of our rainforests. Western consumers, especially Europeans, are as guilty as the companies themselves. They provide the money and market that keeps the trade in Liberian timber alive. In 1999 Europe, the traditional importers of Liberian timber, imported 155,559.639m3 of log about 82% of the total logs export. France imported 37%, followed by Italy 19% and Turkey 15%. The port city of Bordeaux (France) is recorded as destination of the largest percentage of Liberian timber. Spain and Portugal also imported Liberian timber during the period. In the first six months of 2000 there was a sharp increase in the production of round logs. The 679,352.376m3 recorded by the Forestry Development Authority (FDA) for the period far exceeded the total production of 596,355.116m3 recorded for the preceding four years from January 1996 to December 1999. During this period the Asia imported 49.4% of Liberia’s export while 38.4% went to Europe. France alone imported 17.9% of the round logs and 51.4% of sawn timber exported from Liberia. About sixty species of trees are currently being harvested in Liberia. Ten of these sixty species constituted about 65.4% of the total export. Ekki (Lophira alata), known locally as ironwood and used mostly for bridge and house construction by the rural people, was heavily exploited accounting for approximately 20% of the total production. Niangon (Heritiera utilis) was second constituting about 13% and Abura (Mitragyna ciliata) with 7%. The World Bank is arguably the pioneer of deforestation in Liberia; a situation the bank is yet to acknowledge. In the 1970’s and early 80’s the bank financed agricultural projects such as cocoa, coffee and oil plantations that did little to alleviate poverty but did more to destroy the rich tropical rainforest mostly intact then. One of the projects, the Bong County Agricultural Development Project induced a massive shift from food to cash crop production undermining the national government’s drive for self-sufficiency in food production. Again in 1999 the International Finance Corporation (IFC) - the private lending arm of the World Bank, granted the Liberian Agricultural Company (LAC) a U$S 3.5 million loan to ostensibly upgrade and expand its rubber plantations in rural Liberia. Large tracts of primary and secondary forests have been cleared and is being planted with rubber, despite protest from local environmentalists. The bank argued that the area earmarked for the expansion was mostly broken forest and therefore not covered by the bank’s own policy which forbids investing in projects that would lead to conversion of primary forest. Perhaps the bank chooses to ignore or it is ignorant of the fact that when the companies abandon the plantation due to low yield or other factors, charcoal miners move in. The rubber trees are felled and burned to produce charcoal leaving behind hundreds of acres of empty fields and wasteland. The forest is the life-line of the indigenous communities, the people rely on it for their livelihood. The forest provides shelter for their cultural and religious practices including shrines, traditional bush schools, cover for the streams, medicinal herbs, farmland, etc. It also provides them means of self-employment and income for sustainable livelihood with trade in arts and craft accounting for more than 40% of their earnings. Conversant of the need for sustainable forest exploitation, indigenous people practiced nature conservation for centuries. Hunting and farming in some dense forests was prohibited and fishing restricted to certain portions of the rivers. Individual fishing in communal streams was discouraged and fish was harvested once a year during the dry season. Felling trees of cultural or spiritual value is considered a taboo. The hunting of certain animals including leopards and tigers was strictly forbidden. The lost of the forest has not only limited the people’s ability to feed themselves and lead healthy lives, it has effectively undermined the authority of their social structures. The traditional bush school hosted only in high forest is dying fast. Societies such as the Poro and Sande also usually headquartered in dense forest have almost disappeared completely. All of these institutions promoted unity and love in the community, instilled discipline into the youths and ensured strict adherence to moral standards set by the society as well as enforce law and resolving conflicts. A situation that is causing despair and apprehension in our communities. Whither we go from here, is no longer a point of speculation. The reality of the danger ahead is looming larger than life itself. By: Silas Siankor, SAMFU Foundation, 18/3/2001, e-mail: samfu1@yahoo.com
- Mali: the value of biodiversity in a fragile environment Known by its historical past because of the vast and powerful empire that surprised European visitors in the XIV century, nowadays the Malian territory comprises more than 1,200,000 square kilometres in West Africa, over the Sahara desert in the north, the Sahel grasslands in the centre and the savannah region in the south. In the Sahel, human life as well as that of the flora and fauna follow the Niger River's annual flood cycle, with high water levels between August and November. More plentiful rainfall and water courses --including the Niger River-- in the southern region give place to a more lush biodiversity. With more than 58% of its land desert and another 30% threatened by the continued encroachment of the Sahel, Mali faces desertification and deforestation as two capital environmental problems, both of them strongly related to the loss of biodiversity. The wide variety of plants and animals from the forests and other ecosystems containing trees --like the savannah-- constitute an important component of household food supply. In many villages and small towns, the "hidden harvest" from forests and trees is essential for food security since it provides a number of essential dietary products. For example, the fruit of Saba senegalensis is widely eaten in Mali. The failure of the plantation projects using alien fast growing species in order to mitigate the effects of the drought registered in the decade of 1970, was due to the fact that they did not recognise that for many rural people the non-timber forest products are important to their social and economic survival. Thus they preferred native species to alien ones, no matter how fast they could grow. Forests and trees contribute also indirectly to food security because they have a major role in the sustainability of agricultural production systems by providing, for example, nitrogen to the soil as in the case of leguminous species. This is the case of an agroforestry system adopted in Mali, with millet cultivation under Acacia albida. The meat of wild animals --from mammals to insects-- that are hunted or collected in the forests for food, known as bushmeat, is an important source of animal protein in both rural and urban households. Many communities still depend on wild animals and their products, used alone or with herbs, for medication and the treatment of a wide variety of diseases. The use of wildlife as a food resource is controversial. To the official viewpoint the decline of wildlife in many parts of the country results from increasing population and the associated demand for land for agriculture and human settlement. Nevertheless such simplistic approach ignores the underlying causes of deforestation and forest degradation. Nowadays the necessity of integrating the needs of local people into the management of wildlife resources and biodiversity is accepted as the only way to ensure conservation. A similar situation is occuring with regards to firewood. A study conducted in 2000 by Mali's National Energy Bureau concluded that firewood accounts for nearly 100% of the country's domestic fuel needs, which --according to the study-- would mean that each year more than 464,285 hectares of land would have to be deforested for energy supply purposes. However, taking into account recent studies in Africa, which prove that firewood use is not --as previously believed-- a major cause of deforestation, the conclusions of the above study should be subject to further scrutiny. Mistaken policies like those adopted in the past to conserve the forests in Mali, based on the "Blame the poor" approach, need to be avoided. In the mid-1980s an oppressive set of state policies was adopted. The Forest Service implemented a series of draconian restrictions on the use of forest products by local communities. This step was very unpopular and strongly resisted, since fines exceeded by far the rural per capita income, people were left without an important portion of their livelihoods, and policy implementation was aggressive. At last it had to be abandoned without any positive results. Article based on information from: http://darwin.bio.uci.edu/~sustain/bio65/lec10/b65lec10.htm ; http://www.wri.org/wdces/ma85_87.html; http://www.reliefweb.int/IRIN/wa/countrystories/mali/20001003.phtml; http://www.geographia.com/index.html; http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/X7273E/x7273e03.htm; Nabil El-Khodari, 27/2/2001, e-mail: khodari@yahoo.com ; "Learning with farmers for policy changes in natural resource management" by Mamadou Gakou and Jo Ellen Force, Home | Newsletter # 31 | Publications | FAO homepage
- South Africa: The alien tree species threat to grassland biodiversity Invasion of habitats by alien plants is one of the causes of the extinction of native species. Some plant species have developed the capacity to adapt to new sites and to displace the original vegetation cover. This phenomenon has been widely recorded and it is known as "bioinvasion". Needless to say that invasive species constitute a threat for biodiversity at the local and regional level, since the spread of newcomers alters the richness and abundance of the flora and fauna of the original ecosystem. This is what has been happening in South Africa, with the aggravating factor that the country is home to unique and endemic species and that it hosts high levels of biodiversity. . With a land surface area of 1,221,000 hectares South Africa contains almost 10% of the world's total known bird, fish and plant species, and over 6% of the world's mammal and reptile species. In regards to biodiversity, grasslands are one of the most important ecosystems in South Africa, but they are being invaded by tree monocultures. Nowadays there exist some 1.5 million hectares of tree plantations, mostly composed of eucalyptus and pine trees, as well as a lesser area of Australian wattle. They are concentrated in the higher rainfall areas of the provinces of Kwazulu-Natal and Mpumalanga. Even though conservation efforts worldwide have been mostly focused on tropical ecosystems, it is to be underscored that grasslands, typical of the temperate areas, present high levels of biodiversity and endemism. The destruction of South Africa's grasslands is taking place because of the effects of large-scale tree monocultures on the original ecosystem --including plants, soils and water-- as well as through the substitution of native grass species by alien plant invasions in areas outside the plantations themselves. The changes in the composition of the primary producers --plants-- imply a complete change in the food pyramid, and many animals are either forced to migrate or their populations get drastically reduced or even disappear. In South Africa, grassland areas invaded by trees are called "jungle gum" and "jungle wattle", and already occupy 1.6 million hectares. As their name expresses, the predominant trees are "gums" --the generic term used for eucalyptus in the country-- and "wattle", that comprise several species of Australian acacia. After strong protests from civil society, --organized in the NGO coalition Timberwatch-- against the tree monoculture model, the authorities appear to have begun to react. Although the real solution would be to prohibit these destructive plantations in the whole territory of the country, the inclusion of several species widely used for plantations as "invaders" in the ammendments recently proposed to the Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act of 1983 are to be considered a step forward. In effect, several species of Acacia, as well as Eucalyptus grandis, Eucalyptus saligna, Pinus elliottii, Pinus taeda, Pinus pinaster, Pinus patula, and Pinus radiata, among others, have been included in "Category 2: plants that are useful for commercial plant production purposes but are proven plant invaders under uncontrolled conditions outside demarcated areas." The new norm also establishes compulsory steps to be undertaken in order to erradicate them. Nevertheless, and even with the official recognition of the threat that it means to biodiversity, soil and water resources, the tree monoculture model in South Africa is far from being suppressed. Additionally, Timberwatch has recently warned that one of the major plantation companies --SAPPI-- is carrying out field tests with genetically engineered eucalyptus, which would mean an even more serious threat to biodiversity. The country --and particularly the South African government-- needs to choose between the conservation of the country's biodiversity --to a large extent hosted by grasslands-- and the occupation of land by large-scale tree monocultures. There is no place for the conservation of grasslands within the context of the expansion of alien tree monocultures. Article based on information from: Heinrich
Walter, "Vegetationzonen und Klima", Verlag Eugen Ulmer,
Stuttgart, 1970; Philip Owen, 7/3/2001 and 9/3/2001, e-mail: owen@soft.co.za;
ASIA - The vanishing forest biodiversity of Bangladesh Bangladesh is one of the states signatories of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Nevertheless, the three types of forests existing in the country --the evergreen and semi-evergreen rainforests in the eastern region and at the Chittagong Hill Tracts region, the moist and dry deciduous forests, known as "sal" forests, situated in the central plains and the northeast region, and the tidal mangrove forests along the coast-- are under threat, and little is being done to save them. In the meantime, annual deforestation rate has reached 3.3%. The Chittagong Hill Tracts comprise 14,000 square kilometers, which represent about 10% of the country area. Some of the major species in these forests grow to gigantic heights and diametres. The tallest part of the canopy is generally formed by deciduous and semideciduous trees while the understorey is of evergreen type. Bamboo formations and savannah are also present. Several important species of mammals inhabit the area: elephants, bisons, deers, leopards, and the symbolic Royal Bengal tiger. Birds like the imperial pigeon, the green pigeon, and the white winged wood duck are also present. Commercial tree plantations, illegal logging, dam megaprojects, and forced displacement are responsible for the accelerated destruction of those precious ecosystems, which means the destruction of their biodiversity. Rubber, teak and eucalyptus monocultures for export have provoked negative ecological effects by the substitution of part of the forest, as well as conflicts between local communities belonging to the 13 ethnic groups that inhabit the region, and the Forest Department. Unluckily this type of situations are frequent throughout Asia. The same authorities that promote plantations have proved unable to control illegal logging by gangs. Regarding megaprojects, the Kaptai Dam is a good/bad example of how external funding in the name if development can devastate an area and have multiplier effects on the environment, the economy and the life of nearby communities. The dam, constructed in 1964 with the help of USAID, submerged 250 square kilometres of agricultural lands and forests belonging to the hill people, mainly the Chakma, and provoked the forced relocation of about 100,000 persons, who lost their homes and livelihoods. The displaced people were forced to clear new forest areas in order to carry out their subsistence agricultural practices. Traditionally "sal" forests used to cover vast areas in the centre and east of Bangladesh. In addtion to the "sal" trees (Shorea robusta) which constitue 70 to 75% of the forest composition, this type of forest includes several valuable tree and herbaceous species like the sungrass. Biological diversity in the "sal" forests is unique. Nevertheless, the Asian Development Bank has actively promoted the destruction of the "sal" forests by considering them of low productivity, thus financing projects for tree monoculture plantations using eucalyptus and rubber among other species. Nowadays the only big patch of "sal" forest standing is that of Modhupur. Most of the forest land has been denuded, degraded, and occupied by forestry companies or displaced people. Sundarban, the largest mangrove in the world, is located in the southwest region of the country, on the border between India and Bangladesh. It is fed by a hydrological network of fresh water belonging to the Ganges watershed, and the salty water of the Gulf of Bengal. It comprises an area of more than 10,300 square kilometres with a complex and rich habitat where many species of fauna and flora coexist: mammals, several hundred species of birds --some of them migratory-- as well as crocodiles, other reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates. In addition, it is one of the last reserves of the royal bengal tiger. The UNESCO has declared it a World Heritage Site. The Sundarban is the source of livelihoods --fish, honey, timber, fuelwood-- for local populations. A recent survey has estimated that between 500,000 and 600,000 people --including commercial and industrial enterprises-- depend directly on the products obtained from these mangroves. In this case, the main direct cause of destruction is gas and oil prospection and exploitation by multinational companies, among which Shell, whose activities are being favoured by the government itself under the name of development. The so-called Sundarbans Bio Diversity Project, designed to restore the original ecosystem and funded by the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and the Nordic Development Fund, is being strongly criticised by IEDS (Friends of the Earth – Bangladesh) because of the infrastructures for ecotourism built in the heart of the mangrove and the non transparent way in which the whole project is being implemented, disregarding the viewpoints and interests of local communities. Even though to the official and the development agencies viewpoint population pressure is the only cause for forest destruction in Bangladesh, reality shows that unsustainable "development" and infrastructure projects, coupled with a poor performance of the authorities regarding forest conservation constitute the most important causes of deforestation and forest degradation in that country. Article based on information from: Gain Philip, "The last forests of Bangladesh", Society for Environment and Human Development (SEHD), Dhaka, 1998; IEDS (Friends of The Earth –Bangladesh), 8/3/2001, e-mail: iedsfoeb@accesstel.net
- Cambodia: Eucalyptus plantations and pulp production threaten forests and rivers Forest and biodiversity conservation mean different things to different people. In the case of Cambodia, village people throughout the country depend on farmland, fisheries and forests for their livelihoods. For them, conserving the forest and its biodiversity implies ensuring their present and future means of survival. In recent years, even as peace has returned to rural areas, large scale logging concessions have reduced villagers' access and rights to forests, and caused massive damage to the forests themselves. Cambodia's villagers and their forests now face a new threat -- that of massive industrial tree plantations. In January 2000, the Royal Government of Cambodia signed an agreement with the Pheapimex Group giving the company a 70-year right to "develop" 300,000 hectares of "spare forest" land in the provinces of Kampong Chhnang and Pursat in central Cambodia. Pheapimex intends to plant the land with eucalyptus trees to supply a planned pulp and paper mill in Kandal province. In addition to wood, paper production requires huge amounts of chemicals, water and energy, and the process results in high levels of pollution. Mills release thousands of polluting substances into nearby waterways, including dissolved wood and chemicals which can reduce the oxygen levels in rivers and kill fish. The major waterway in central Cambodia is the Tonle Sap, a vast lake which flows into the Mekong at Phnom Penh and from there to the Mekong delta. The lake provides Cambodia with a large proportion of its fish and water from the Tonle Sap irrigates a huge area of rice fields. If the Tonle Sap became polluted by discharges from a pulp and paper mill it would have a disastrous impact on the livelihoods of thousands of people. In December 2000, Pheapimex signed a joint venture agreement with the Chinese Farm Cooperation Group to build a pulp and paper mill. The US$70 million joint venture is financed by the Import-Export Bank of China, and forms part of a deal between the Chinese and Cambodian governments to boost trade and investment between the two countries. Under the terms of the loan, the companies will pay five per cent interest to the Cambodian government, but the Chinese bank will only charge three per cent. The Secretary for Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery, Chan Tong Iv, told the Phnom Penh Daily he welcomed the deal and said the government's efforts to draw investment into the agriculture sector were bearing fruit. Pheapimex is well-placed to benefit from such deals -- Lao Meng Ken, Pheapimex's director, is also a special adviser for foreign investment to Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen. Pheapimex-Fuchan, a Taiwanese joint venture with the Pheapimex Group is the largest logging concession holder in Cambodia, with more than 700,000 hectares of concessions. According to Global Witness, Pheapimex-Fuchan is "the worst concessionaire in Cambodia, and the best connected". Global Witness -- currently employed in Cambodia's Forest Crimes Monitoring Unit which is funded by the UK's Department for International Development -- has accused Pheapimex of illegally logging outside their concessions, logging in other firms' concessions, threatening and attacking forestry officials and logging without the prior approval of the Department of Forestry. Lao Meng Ken explained to the Phnom Penh Post that he believed Pheapimex's plantation project would not violate the property rights of local people. "I heard that the people complain about cutting of their resin trees. But we're planting in a place that does not violate their rights," he said. Villagers in Ansa Chombok commune in Pursak province disagree. They are afraid that the plantation will destroy 6,800 hectares of forest near their village. The forest includes an area of lowland pine forest (Pinus merkusii) which is rare in Cambodia and protected by law. In February this year, villagers travelled to Phnom Penh to try to persuade the government to halt the planned plantation. In March, a meeting between government officials and villagers took place in Ansa Chombok commune. Over 100 villagers from seven villages turned up to the meeting but officials allowed only one representative from each village into the meeting. During the meeting, the village representatives asked the government officials a series of questions, including: whether the government had approved an environmental impact assessment before signing the contract with Pheapimex; what the likely impact of a pulp and paper mill would be on the Tonle Sap and its fish; and why, when already Cambodia is suffering from rapid deforestation, is the government allowing Pheapimex to destroy more forest. The government officials offered no response. Oum Huot, a villager from Ansa Chombok told the Phnom Penh Post, "We completely reject the idea that this land is 'degraded forest'. This is good forest and the big trees were cut by loggers only in the last few years. If they leave this land alone for 15 to 20 years big trees will grow again." "We are worried about this plan," Luek Thuon, another villager from Ansa Chombok, told the Phnom Penh Post. "If they destroy the old forest they might as well come to kill us all. It is our rice pot." By: Chris Lang, e-mail: http://chrislang.org
- Laos: Cutting the trees to save the forest Not long ago, the Nakai Plateau and the surrounding forest in central Laos was home to tiger, elephant, otter, rhesus macaque, tawny fish-owl, crested kingfisher, Siamese fireback and brown hornbill. The communities living in the area use 28 different languages. A hunter-gatherer group, unknown outside the Plateau, speaks a language unrelated to any of the five major language groups found in the area. In 1992, a new genus of bovid, the Sao La, was identified in Vietnam. Its habitat also extends into the Nakai-Nam Theun National Biodiversity Conservation Area (NBCA) in Laos. The route of the Ho Chi Minh trail runs through the area and the US air force heavily bombed the area during its war against Vietnam, with devastating consequences for people, wildlife and forests. For the last ten years or so, a Lao military-run logging company has been logging in an area of 450 square kilometres on the Plateau to make way for the reservoir behind the proposed 1069 megawatt Nam Theun 2 hydroelectric dam. Late last year a stockpile of one million cubic metres of felled timber from the Nakai Plateau was reported to be waiting for a buyer. All of this might seem like yet another environmental and social disaster. Not so, at least according to the World Bank-funded Panel of Experts, who were hired to provide advice on the proposed US$1.1 billion dam. The three members of the Panel of Experts, far from decrying the devastation caused by the logging, describe the current situation as "encouraging" and argue that the project should be "carried out as planned with WB [World Bank] involvement", otherwise "the effect will be to increase rather than decrease rural poverty, and to seriously degrade or lose entirely the globally recognised biodiversity values of the NBCA". The project may never be built. The dam's developers, the Nam Theun 2 Electricity Consortium (NTEC), say it depends on a World Bank US$100 million "partial risk guarantee" covering the commercial loans to the project. Without the guarantee, commercial banks will not put money into a financially risky scheme. Increasingly desperate to push the project ahead, NTEC wants the Bank to agree to the loan-guarantee in the next few months. The Panel's commitment to the proposed dam apparently overrides any analysis. Their third report (dated January 1998) mentions an "undescribed new fish species" recently discovered on the stretch of the Nam Theun river just below the proposed dam site. If the dam is constructed, water from the Nam Theun will be diverted into another river, the Xe Bang Fai, and the flow immediately below the dam will be "substantially reduced". The Panel simply states: "We judge that if indeed this fish occurs nowhere else (and several other likely rivers have yet to be explored) its loss is ... an acceptable trade off." One of the members of the Panel, Thayer Scudder, is a Professor of Anthropology at the California Institute of Technology. Scudder has the dubious honour of being the world's leading expert on forced resettlement and describes himself as "Acknowledged as the Dean of community resettlement studies". He points out that logging is presently the main source of income for the Lao government, but argues, "the best source of foreign exchange available to Laos is through export of hydro-power". So, according to Scudder, logging 450 square kilometres, flooding the land and creating a huge area of mud, dead trees and breeding ground for mosquitoes, is fine as long as it pays for conserving the Nakai-Nam Theun NBCA. Scudder says that the 6000 people to be relocated are "incredibly poor to start with", but he concludes "people are going to be moved regardless" and adds, "I prefer to try to improve that resettlement rather than just sit back and criticize it". In a documentary film made for UK television in 1987, Scudder stated that he could not point to a single project, World Bank-financed or otherwise, where a displaced population had been successfully rehabilitated. "Forced resettlement is about the worst thing you can do to a people next to killing them," he said. Resettlement problems associated with the proposed Nam Theun 2 project have already started. The Lao military-run logging company Bholisat Phattana Khed Phou Doi (BPKP - the Mountain Region Development Company) has logged several areas outside the proposed reservoir area, including a proposed community forest area that was supposed to provide an income for evicted villagers. BPKP has already moved families from the proposed reservoir area -- completely independently of any planned World Bank resettlement programmes. A sizeable industry has developed in the area to process the timber logged from the plateau. The Panel of Experts points out that this industry "may exert strong political pressure to be allowed to log inside conservation areas when their existing log sources are exhausted and before plantation grown timber becomes ready to harvest." This does not, however, diminish the Panel's support for the project. Another member of the Panel of Experts is Tim Whitmore, from Cambridge University, well-known for his 1990 book "An Introduction to Tropical Rain Forests". A few years ago Whitmore was part of another team of experts -- this time brought together by the European Commission's Joint Research Centre. After two days work, the team produced a study mapping tropical deforestation "hotspots" worldwide. The authors concluded there is no hope of stopping deforestation caused by logging companies and farmers in major rainforest regions. Whitmore confirmed the report's conclusions in comments he made to New Scientist magazine and added, "Southeast Asia has had it. There is little old-growth forest left there anywhere." Given this point of view, it is not surprising that Whitmore does not see a problem with a project that involves clearing 450 square kilometres of people and trees to make way for a proposed reservoir. It is also not surprising that he seems unconcerned about logging continuing in the remaining forest long after the dam is built. What is perhaps surprising is that the World Bank is paying him to provide advice on the region he says has "had it". By: Chris Lang, e-mail: http://chrislang.org
- The Philippines: The decline of a megabiodiverse giant Vegetation maps published in Geography books still show the archipelago of the Philippines, as covered by dense tropical forests. Unfortunately, this does not correspond to reality any longer. Over the past 50 years almost two thirds of the country's forests --most of them primary-- have been lost, and nowadays forest cover is only 17 % --far below the original 60% of the country area. In 1990 the country's forest was down to only 16 million acres, 1,75 million of which was primary forest and only 50% of the original mangroves remained standing. The situation has since worsened. The loss of forests has exacerbated floods, soil erosion, deprivation of livelihoods for local communities and loss of aesthetic and recreational values --not to mention the damage to biodiversity. The Philippines is considered a megabiodiverse country. It harbours about 8,000 species of flowering plants distributed in about 1,600 genera and 191 families. There are more than 6,490 registered species of non-flowering plants (i.e. algae, fungi, mosses, ferns, etc.) which sum up about 14,500 plant species in the country. Between 30 to 40% out of them are endemic (nowhere else found in the world). Accelerated deforestation and forest degradation pose a grave threat to this heritage. Logging has historically been the most important direct cause of deforestation in the Philippines. Successive governments have not only turned a blind eye on the illegal activities of transnational logging companies, but even encouraged them through lack of control, corrupt practices and the promotion of an export oriented model. The country was Asia's greatest exporter of rainforest timber since the 1920s and remained so until the 1960s. By the early 70s it was obvious, even for the authorities, that forest resources were dwindling rapidly. A logging ban was introduced in 1973, which was never implemented. As a matter of fact it only served to concentrate the ownership of timber licenses in the hands of a few supporters of dictator Marcos. A new ban established in 1986 was equally ineffective. Even after 1991, when logging was prohibited in sensitive areas such as primary forests and some watershed areas, compliance with the mandatory conditions and prevention of illegal logging was impossible due to insufficient resources. At the same time that forests were disappearing and biodiversity was decreasing, loggers were amassing huge sums of money and the vast majority of the population was getting poorer and poorer. But logging is by no means the only destructive activity. Mining is also resulting in further forest loss and degradation. About 40% of the country's territory has already been given away by the government under the form of concessions to multinational mining companies. Additionally, another important threat to biodiversity at the local level is industrial shrimp farming, which is resulting in widespread mangrove degradation and destruction. Official initiatives towards forest conservation have repeatedly failed, in spite of the large sums of money from international sources spent in a number of projects. The basic reason is that the multiple value of forests --as a basic resource for local economies, a tool for environmental control, and a harbour for biodiversity-- have been ignored. More importantly, the issues of land tenure and indigenous peoples' rights, strongly related to the forest problem, have not been addressed. Unless the above and other direct and underlying causes of deforestation and forest degradation are urgently addressed, megabiodiversity in the Philippines will continue being under threat and future Geography book vegetation maps may show a totally different picture. Article based on information from: "Deforestation in Philippines Preview of Things to Come", Worldwide Forest/Biodiversity Campaign News, 6/3/2001; http://www.photius.com/wfb/wfb1999/philippines/philippines_geography.html; http://www.usaid-ph.gov/environment%20biodiversity_usaid.htm; http://www.pnh.com.ph/fpp.htm
CENTRAL AMERICA - The Indigenous and Campesino Biological Corridor in Central America Biological corridors are linear strips of vegetation that provide a continuous or near continuous pathway between habitats. They constitute a strategy used in nature conservation to cope with the problem of habitat fragmentation provoked by economic activities such as industrial agriculture and tree plantations, urbanizations and infrastructure works like highways and dams. Based upon modern theories of Ecology applied to conservation --e.g. island biogeography, metapopulations and minimum viable population-- the core idea of biological corridors is that natural populations, communities and ecological processes are more likely to be maintained in landscapes that comprise an interconnected system of habitats. The aim is thus to create a space for the free passage of animals and seeds to connect valuable areas from the point of view of biodiversity, which otherwise would sooner or later disappear. Due to its location in the tropics and the different landscapes it comprises Central America hosts one of the major levels of biodiversity in the world. The Mesoamerican Biological Corridor (MBC), originally proposed in 1996, is an interesting initiative for the necessary conservation of biodiversity in this continent. According to the Central American Commission on Environment and Development the corridor is "a system of territorial planning formed by natural protected areas under a special regime; core, buffer, multiple use and interconnected areas, organized and consolidated in order to provide an array of environmental goods and products to the Central American and the global society, offering spaces for social harmonization to promote investments in the conservation and the sustainable use of natural resources, with the aim of contributing to the improvement of the quality of life of the inhabitants of the region". Since human societies have occupied practically the whole of the Earth's surface, biodiversity is the result of the interaction between the natural world and human cultures. Thus every biodiversity conservation project should have a social and cultural component, which at least implies the inclusion of the viewpoints and the traditional knowledge of local dwellers. This is especially remarkable in Central America, where the relationship between human societies and forests is ancestral. Nevertheless, the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor was too much focused on preservation, ignoring the importance of rural communities for conservation. In 1998 CICAFOC --a coordinating body of fifty Central American campesino and indigenous organizations founded in 1994-- proposed the creation of the so called Biological Indigenous and Campesino Corridor. The idea was widely accepted at the international level but initially resisted by the promoters of the MBC. The work of CICAFOC after the sad experience of the devastating Hurricane Mitch in 1998 clearly showed that the activity of local peasants and indigenous people was essential both to reduce the vulnerability of the region --its forests included-- to such kind of phenomena that are typical to the tropics, and to quickly recover the affected areas. Community-based practices, based on a rich cultural and ecological heritage, have been and still are an alternative for biodiversity conservation in a continent severely affected by civil wars, social conflicts and destructive export oriented activities. As a result, in 1999 the Central American Commission on Environment and Development acepted the idea proposed by CICAFOC, including it into the MBC as the Social and Productive Component (SPC). This constitutes a regional strategy of rural development aimed at coordinating the efforts to protect and conserve the heritage of biodiversity as well as natural resources in Central America, and to enhance environmentally friendly activities in nearby woodlands and in the reserve areas of the region. CICAFOC is in charge of the coordination and direction of the SPC. The SPC has been programmed to be operational during five years. What is now happening is that during the initial phase of the projects, cases of sustainable use of natural resources and biodiversity conservation are being identified, disseminated and given support. The strong linkage between natural and cultural biodiversity is underscored. In this way, CICAFOC is strongly contributing to a new type of conservation approach which appears to have much more chances of success than the previous approaches based on the exclusion of local peoples. Article based on information from: http://www.cicafoc.com/componente.htm ; CICAFOC – UNOFOC AC – UICN, "Comunidades y gestión de bosques en Mesoamérica", Impresión Comercial La Nación S.A., San José de Costa Rica, Enero 2000; Andrew F. Bennet, "Linkages in the Landscape. The Role of Corridors and Connectivity in Wildlife Conservation", Page Bros Ltd., Norwich, 1999, ISBN 2-8317-0221-6
- Belize: The old story about dams and development In the last issue of our bulletin we included an article on Belize, calling it a country "where forests can still be saved." We should have added: "if the government and a Canadian power company allows it." The fact is that the Canadian based Fortis Inc. -- which also holds a majority stake in Belize Electricity Ltd.-- is planning to build a dam along a branch of the Macal River. Environmentalists in Belize are carrying out actions to prevent this happening, because the project would flood a sensitive jungle habitat whose thick riverbank vegetation offers a bountiful green feast for tapirs, jaguars and scarlet macaws. The area where the dam is proposed is part of a biological corridor that Central American nations are trying to preserve against broader encroachment. "This is the center of biodiversity, not only for Belize," said Sharon Matola, the director of the Belize Zoo and one of the dam's most outspoken opponents. "This is the cradle for biodiversity for Central America. Look at the scarlet macaw; they breed in that river valley. This is the only place in Central America where they live unmolested." The pro-dam lobby has reacted with the usual arguments, beginning by attacking the involvement of "foreign" groups supporting local environmentalists. Along those lines, Prime Minister Said Musa said: "We don't think it is fair for these environmental groups to be beating up Belize over this little dam when their own countries have so many of them. Now they are trying to tell us we can't have one." He appears to have forgotten that Fortis is also foreign and if this "little dam" were to be implemented, it would be beating up Belize's environment, not because of its environmental or social concerns but simply for profits. In turn, the local press has --with no evidence at all- accused opposers of the dam of being lawbreakers and terrorists. A few leading citizens have called the environmental groups enemies of the nation that are trying to impose racist schemes to keep Belize undeveloped, while more moderate pro-dam positions have said the environmental groups are denying this country the kinds of modern conveniences that others take for granted. The debate between environmentalists and developers and government officials has become so heated that some local opponents of the dam say they have become targets for retaliation. Kimo Jolly, a teacher and environmentalist, said he had been dismissed from his teaching job recently after holding a seminar that touched on the dam as well as the proposed sale of Belize's water authority to overseas investors. In sum, the old false antagonism between development and conservation. In spite of all the internationally agreed commitments for biodiversity conservation, in spite of the growing awareness about the impacts of environmental destruction, it is still being perceived as a necessity for the achievement of "development." The much publicized concept of "sustainable development" continues to be but an empty slogan only useful for continuing business --and destruction-- as usual. Within that context, the environmentalists' struggle to protect the Macal River deserves our wholehearted support. The notion that national and international environmental organizations are trying to "beat up" Belize or to keep it in a state of undevelopment constitute only a bad excuse for avoiding the real issue. The Macal need not be sacrificed and we sincerely hope that this project will be definitely shelved. Development and conservation are both necessary and must go hand in hand. Article based on information from: David Gonzalez, 'Upbeat Plan for a Dam in Belize Turns Nasty', March 2, 2001, the New York Times; Ricardo Carrere's personal observations in Belize
SOUTH AMERICA - Argentina: The systematic destruction of forest biodiversity With an area of 2,791,810 square kilometres, Argentina is the second largest country in South America. Due to its extension in latitude --from 22 to 56 º SL-- its territory encompasses a variety of climates, landscapes, flora and fauna. Argentina is included in the group of the 25 most biodiverse countries in the world in terms of sheer numbers of species present. The several types of native forests to be found in that country are strongly linked to such biodiversity levels. Nevertheless, they have been disappearing at an alarming rate. At the beginning of the 20th century, the country had more than 100 million hectares of forests, which at present are reduced to less than 20 million hectares, half of them suffering an accelerated process of degradation. Those supposedly responsible for their conservation have reacted with complete indifference and in some cases even promoting such destruction. The causes of the present situation are historical. Coinciding with the conquest of the country's interior by the Buenos Aires centralized government that took place during the second half of the 19th century in the name of modernization, forests in different regions of the country entered a period of decline which has continued and worsened in the last decades. Logging by foreign and national companies, infrastructure projects and more recently the establishment of pulpwood and carbon-sink monoculture tree plantations have been some of the major causes of forest loss. Cases of deforestation have been reported all over the country. During the 19th century, in the northern province of Santiago del Estero a severe process of deforestation occured, which devastated the forests to the detriment of a local population formed by people of Quichua and Spanish descent. Responsible for it were powerful European logging companies --stimulated by the government-- which once the resource was exhausted left the country leaving a landscape of devastation and poverty behind. A similar case is that of the Province of Santa Fé, where forest cover decreased in nearly 4.6 million hectares over the last 80 years, with a deforestation rate reaching 121,500 hectares per year between 1970 and 1984. The British forestry company La Forestal, which began to operate in the region in 1880 owning nearly one third of the Province's area to exploit "quebracho" (Schinopsis balansae) forests, was the direct responsible for this depletion. Social unrest caused by the exploitation of nature and people and violent repression that followed constitute one of the most serious cases of environmental conflicts in Latin America. In central San Luis Province, the last 200,000 hectares of "caldén" (Prosopis caldenia) forests are threatened by a project to be implemented by Orinco Argentina S.A. to produce parquet flooring and charcoal for export. This is a unique open forest in a semiarid climate, where several tree species coexist with the dominant Prosopis caldenia, such as Geoffroea decorticans, Iodina rhombifolia, Schinus fasciculatus and Prosopis nigra. The subtropical Province of Misiones, at the border with Brazil and Paraguay, is also undergoing a process of forest loss. At the beginning of the 20th century 90% of its area was covered by a dense subtropical forest, but nowadays there are only 1,500,000 hectares left. Instead, large areas of the province are now covered by monoculture pine tree plantations mostly aimed at pulp production. Last February the government of Tierra del Fuego Province, in the extreme south of the country, authorized the logging of 130,000 hectares of "lenga" (Nothofagus pumilio) native forests, with complete disregard of the opinion of civil society and academic circles. The beneficiary is the US-based company Trillium, which has already created environmental conflicts for its devastating activities in southern Chile. Infrastructure works are also a direct cause of deforestation and biodiversity loss. The NGO Vida Silvestre has recently denounced the destruction of the riverine forests in the hydrologic system of the Uruguay River in the eastern province of Entre Ríos because of this reason. In the northern Provinces of Jujuy and Salta, the Kolla indigenous people have been defending the "yungas" --one of the last remaining mountain forests in Argentina, that is the habitat of the endangered jaguar "yaguareté"-- against a pipeline project that would transport natural gas from eastern Salta to northern Chile's copper mines. Greenpeace Argentina has had an active participation in this conflict. Last but not least, tree plantations with fast-growing species are posing a major threat to biodiversity in Argentina. Carbon sink plantations --together with the more traditional pulpwood and timber plantations-- are increasingly being promoted as a "solution" to climate change and could result in further forest loss. In May 2000 the company El Foyel S.A, in an area located near the Nahuel Huapí National Park, in the southern Province of Río Negro, began to log 300 hectareas of native forest to substitute them with oregon and radiata pine plantations for a carbon sink project. Native cypress trees, as well as "ñire" (Nothofagus antartica) and "maitén" (Maytenus boaria) were cut down. The quick and strong reaction of local dwellers and the environmental NGO "Comunidad de Limay" prevented the project to continue. A document titled "Principles and Basis of the Process of Preparation of the National Biodiversity Strategy" states: "The Government and the People of the Argentine Nation know that it is vital to maintain an environment rich in species and ecosystems. They are concerned about the loss of the values and ancient knowledge kept through the years by different cultures and communities that live in the country. Moreover, they consider that conservation of such richness is important for the country and in the best interest for humanity". Nice words ... but there is still a huge gap between such nice wording and reality. Article based on information
from: "¿Nos perdimos en el bosque o perdimos el bosque?" by
Carlos U. Leoni, e-mail: chaco@ecosrioplatenses.org
, sent by Ecosrioplantenses, 28/2/2001, e-mail: info@ecosrioplatenses.org
;
In international processes related to forests and biodiversity, Brazil is one of the countries with a stronger discourse regarding the defense of countries' sovereignty. Unfortunately, it is only a discourse. In reality, what most of Brazil's different governments have actually done is to open the door wide open to foreign investment and the results have been increased poverty and environmental degradation. Which has nothing to do with defending the country's sovereignty. Quite the opposite. Examples of the above abound and we have chosen only one recent example of yet one more project against the Amazon forest: the Urucu Gas and Oil Project in Amazonas. This project is to expand oil and gas production in the Urucu oil field, in an area of highly dense tropical forest, among the most remote and least ecologically disturbed of the Amazon basin. The total project cost is estimated at about 1.04 billion dollars and will also include two additional pipelines (420 and 550 kms respectively), to be buried 1-3 metres underground. Laying and maintaining the pipelines will require the opening of a 15-30 metre-wide road along their entire length, thus resulting in the destruction of some 200,000 hectares of forest exclusively for that purpose. But that is not all. Every 15 kilometres, clearings large enough for a helicopter to land are to be made and given that both the roads and the clearings must be kept open for the estimated life of the project (20-50 years), this will open up to further forest degradation. It is a proven fact that no other single factor more clearly leads to deforestation --acting as conduits for loggers, miners, ranchers and colonists-- in the Amazon than the opening of new roads. Various small, rural communities along the Urucu and Solimoes Rivers have already suffered from the construction of the first 280 km of pipelines completed in 1998. The pipeline road blockaded three streams, formerly used by communities for drinking water, bathing and washing and causing the manioc flour production, a principal source of income and subsistence staple, to cease. Drinking water now has to be brought from a considerable distance. Various other creeks used by local populations along the Urucu River were silted up or rendered inaccessible by the pipeline. Fish populations have fallen dramatically in the Urucu River. Brazil nut and fruit trees have been cut down in several places. The project is supported by the Japanese Export-Import Bank (JEXIM), which has already committed US$ 64 million for the construction of the Urucu Natural Gas processing plant. The JEXIM Bank is thus the financial catalyst for a huge, environmentally risky scheme that already is on track to catalyse a major development disaster of the sort tragically familiar in the Amazon. Both Japan and Brazil are signatories to the Convention on Biological Diversity, but business seems to be business and biodiversity conservation something to talk about. Article based on information from: Rich, Bruce et al., "Export Credit Agencies in Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela", Environmental Defense, 2001(?)
- The Colombian Chocó: A megadiverse region in a megadiverse country . . . for how long? The Chocó Biogeographical Region comprises an area of some 75,000 square kilometres on the Pacific Coast of Colombia, spreading from Panamá to Ecuador. Due to a combination of evolutionary, ecological, climatic and geologic factors, this region presents the highest biodiversity concentration per area in the world. Between 7,000 and 8,000 out of the 45,000 species registered in Colombia are found in the Chocó. Endemic plant species are more than 2,000 while endemic birds comprise more than 100 species, which represent the highest endemism levels in the Planet. Afrocolombian communities living in the area have developed a rich culture in harmony with the environment in that tropical environment. It is a biodiverse region in a biodiverse country. Forests existing in the region have been classified into two groups according to their composition: homogeneous and heterogenous formations. The first ones comprise those where a single species is dominant. It is the case of the "catival", the mangroves and the "naidí", dominated respectively by the "cativo" (Prioria copaifera), the "mangle" (Rhizophora spp) and the "naidí" (Euterpe oleoracea). Heterogeneous forests are composed by a diversity of species according to the altitute gradient, which at the same time are associated with different rainfall volumes. All of the estimations of forest cover carried out until now are coincidental: the region is suffering a severe process of deforestation. Only about 40% of the original forest cover is still standing. Colonization, expansion of the agricultural frontier, cattle raising and logging are the factors explaining the present state of things. Nevertheless, the root cause is to be found in the unfair access to the land and natural resources that reigns not only in this region but in the whole of Colombia. From the Spanish Conquest onwards, the Colombian Pacific Region has been subject to the relentless extraction of its natural resources --such as gold, clay, balsam and several precious woods-- in a process that did not generate any benefits to local people. With political independence the situation did not change. As a matter of fact, the conquest of the territory by the Colombian modern state during the so called periods of "liberalization of nature" (1850-1930) and "modernization of nature" (1930-1970), implied further pressure on the territory of the Biogeographical Chocó. Not only is natural biodiversity under threat but also the diversity of cultures that have coexisted with it. For example, the destruction of the "catival" forests to the hands of private companies is menacing their livelihoods and living space. In some cases --as that of the Forcibly Displaced Afro-Colombian Communities of the Cacarica Basin-- entire communities had to leave their lands and homes, occupied by logging companies, trying to save their lives in a new place. The situation has been referred to as an ecocide. Land tenure and social and environmental-related conflicts have been a tragic constant in Colombian history. The situation of the Embera and the U’wa indigenous people, who have seen their lands invaded by "developers" and been subjects to all types of violations of human rights, including murder, as well as the massive destruction of the forests by illegal crops and its repression --now enhanced by the Plan Colombia-- together with the accelerated deforestation of the precious Chocó Region are alarming signs of an endless process that is undermining biodiversity. Whether Colombia --and the Chocó Biogeographic Region-- are to be considered in the future as biodiverse territories is increasingly dubious. Article based on information
from: "Deforestación y degradación de los bosques en el
territorio-región de las comunidades negras del Pacífico colombiano"
by Hernán Cortes and Eduardo Restrepo. Case study for the Underlying Causes
of Deforestation and Forest Degradation Process
OCEANIA - Papua New Guinea: Two opposite approaches to forest use The state of Papua New Guinea (PNG) comprises the eastern part of the island of New Guinea and a series of smaller islands in the Bismarck Sea and the Coral Sea in the Pacific region. It holds one of the largest intact wilderness areas on Earth. Both natural and cultural diversity used to thrive in that country. The wide variety of microclimates and landforms existing in its more than 462,840 square kilometres have made it possible for several forest types ranging, from lowland mixed forests to mangroves along the coast. Accordingly, PNG's forests provide the habitat for about 200 species of mammals, 20,000 species of plants, 1,500 species of trees and 750 species of birds, half of which are endemic to the island. It has been estimated that between 5 and 7% of the known species in the world live in PNG. Rare plants and animals like the largest orchid, the largest butterfly, the longest lizard, the largest pigeon and the smallest parrot ever registered live in these forests. Additionally, more than 700 languages are spoken by the nations that form a population of 4,200,000 inhabitants. This unique natural and cultural heritage is in danger. The PNG Eco-Forestry Forum has denounced that between 1975 and 1996, PNG lost more than 10% of its forests because of large scale logging. Corrupt and unscrupulous foreign logging companies are directly responsible for such destruction. Even the Prime Minister of PNG has admitted that "governance has been particularly poor in the area of forestry, with the side effect of promoting corrupt practices and undermining environmental sustainability in logging activities". Nowadays, almost half of the country's accessible forests are already committed to industrial logging, and over 30 proposed timber projects threaten the rest. In 1999, the initiative of the PNG government to slow down the alarming rate of rainforest loss, including a ban on new logging projects and promises to support community-based forestry and conservation programmes, provoked enthusiasm among environmentalists and local communities. The official move was mostly due to the requirement formulated by the World Bank of a moratorium on new logging concessions until a full review was carried out, as a condition to obtain a structural adjustment loan. In spite of that, the World Bank is currently preparing to make the final disbursement of the loan even though the review is not complete. It is feared that once it receives that money, the PNG government, eager to obtain cash from exports, will ignore the ban and promote the final destruction of the country's forests. PNG and international environmental NGOs have launched an international campaign for the protection of PNG's forests and biodiversity, and for the promotion of an ecoforestry approach. This alternative conservation model encompasses a variety of activities for the sustainable use of forest resources in the hands of local communities. Activities like fruit and butterfly collection, rattan and medicinal plant harvesting, scientific research and eco-tourism, together with small-scale logging are included. The beneficiaries would not be transnational logging companies but local people and conservation would be part of the production system. The PNG government now has to decide what to support: local people and the environment or transnational loggers and destruction. Article based on information from: http://www.globalresponse.org/ ; http://forests.org/recent/2001/bankabrd.htm ; The World Guide 1997/98.
GENERAL - International Day for Forests and Against Free Trade The so called "free trade" is in reality but the granting of unlimited power to transnational companies to govern the world to the detriment of the vast majority of humanity and nature. Forests worldwide are menaced by the process of liberalization of the economy which tends to weaken yet more the already feeble public controls on logging. Within such context, Native Forest Network (NFN) International --a global network of forest protection organizations and representatives committed to protecting the world's remaining forest ecosystems, as well as indigenous forest communities-- is calling for an International Day for Forests and Against Free Trade, to take place on April 19th in the Northern Hemisphere and April 20th in the Southern Hemisphere. The event will coincide with the activities that will be undertaken in Québec City, Canada, against the Summit of the Americas on those same days. This Summit will gather to work for the implementation of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA, an expansion of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) and MAI (Multilateral Agreement on Investment), strongly resisted by social and environmental organizations. Those interesting in learning more about the organization of this global protest are invited to contact the organizers at the following addresses: Northern Hemisphere Southern Hemisphere
- Forest Cover: New newsletter on global forest issues The Global Forest Coalition is an informal coalition of NGOs and Indigenous Peoples’ Organizations engaged in the global policy debate related to forests, established at the last session of the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF) in February 2000. The first issue of "Forest Cover" --the newsletter of the Global Forest Coalition-- was published in January 2001. The issue includes the following articles:
Those interested in reading the newsletter can access it in the WRM web site at http://www.wrm.org.uy/GFC/cover.html . To receive it directly please write to: lovera1@conexion.com.py
- Article on Ecuador: Clarification from FUNDECOL Verónica Yépez, from the Ecuadorian NGO FUNDECOL, sent us a message in relation to an article published in WRM bulletin 43 ("Ecuador: action to save the mangroves in Guayas"). She thanks us for having publicised the issue and makes some clarifications about the information provided in the article. She informs us that, according to the National Chamber of Aquaculture in 1999 there were 175,253 hectares of shrimp ponds in Ecuador, and in 2000 this figure had increased to 207,000 hectares. Secondly, she clarifies that the Trolley Law II was in fact passed by the Ecuadorian Parliament in August 2000, but that 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. Finally, she explains that the National Coordination for the Defense of Mangroves includes both local communities involved in mangrove management and environmental NGOs concerned with their conservation.
|
 |
|||
|
|||
|
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
