Reply: Law 6,780/01 establishes that the prohibition will only be in force until the agro-ecological mapping of the State has been carried out, which will indicate where eucalyptus can be planted and where it cannot be planted. It will also better regulate, in accordance with a series of obligations, the environmental or forestry permits for the plantation of eucalyptus trees. Permits granted before 4 October 2001 (date of the official publication of the Law) continue to be valid, that is to say, the Senator is mistaken when he affirms that "by a stroke of the pen, the authors of this unfortunate measure have thrown away an extraordinary programme for forestry promotion."

Once the agro-ecological mapping is concluded, the plantation of eucalyptus for the purpose of pulp production may continue in the State but, on the basis of established criteria. We stress that today, the Ministry of the Environment is determined to prepare guidelines for an ecological-economic zonation of the whole of Brazil. Furthermore, the project for the Mata Atlântica biological corridors is presently under preparation and includes the State of Espirito Santo.

Reply: The plantation of eucalyptus cannot be compared to other agricultural alternatives. In accordance with a study made by the Lutheran Seed Foundation (Fundação Luterana Sementes), the plantation of eucalyptus generates an annual income for the farmer of R$700,00/ha/year, while for example the plantation of guayaba may yield up to R$30,000.00/ha/year. The coffee, coconut, banana, lemon and mango plantations may yield up to between 9 and 20 times more for the rural farmer. Furthermore, fruit-growing generates 10 direct jobs per hectare, while 15 hectares of eucalyptus only generate one single job. According to the Secretary of Agriculture of Sao Mateus, the 25,000 hectares of family farming in his municipality generate an annual amount of R$120 million, while in the area of 50,000 hectares of eucalyptus existing in the same municipality, only R$22 million are generated. It is true that agriculture in the state is "sickly", but as a result of the lack of any serious Federal government agricultural policy in support of this sector.

Furthermore, few parliamentarians in the federal context have shown concern over the situation of the 70,000 families in Espirito Santo who gain a living from family agriculture, in spite of the fact that these families are responsible for supplying 70% of the food consumed on the tables of the State’s population. In the year 2000, the Federal Government allocated R$600 million for family farming in the whole of Brazil, while a single company, Aracruz Cellulose, received R$1,000 million from public funds, through the National Development Bank (BNDES) to finance the construction of its third mill, that will only generate some 173 direct and terciarised jobs, according to the company’s own Environmental Impact Assessment and Report on Impact on the Environment. Considering the total value of the investment, the cost per job generated by the company is US$4,797.687,80.

Reply: Unfortunately Senator Gerson seems to completely ignore the recent history of his own State. We would remind him, for example, of the disappearance of 35 indigenous Tupinikim villages in the Municipality of Aracruz at the end of the sixties, including the village of Macacos, where today the company’s pulp-mills are established. Nor has the Senator been informed that it was his own wife, the Federal Deputy Rita Camata, who played an outstanding role in the creation of the FUNAI (Fundaçao Nacional do Indio) Techical Group 0784/94 that studied the history in all its details, with countless indigenous people’s testimonials, and identified 11,000 hectares of land belonging to the indigenous peoples that still continues to be encroached on today by Aracruz Cellulose. But the impacts are not limited to the indigenous communities. The remaining "Quilombo" communities (established by descendants of run-away African slaves) to the north of the State were isolated by the monoculture of eucalyptus trees and many lost their lands. Those who still resist today, live in the most dire poverty and complete abandonment.

Another community that has been violently affected is that of the Barra do Riacho, whose population has always made a living from fishing. It neighbours the company’s port industrial facilities, and its fisheries have been drastically reduced as a result of sedimentation of the Riacho river and the dumping of waste in the sea at distances that are causing contamination of the fishing area. Another problem the fishing community is facing is an uncontrolled growth of the local population, that has increased by over 1000% with people attracted by the promise of jobs. Today, some 10,000 people reside in the region, mostly unemployed, forming pockets of poverty in the locality. There is an increase in drug traffic and use, and also in child prostitution. What is most ironic is that, in spite of the fact that this community is located at one kilometre from the company, it has no type of basic sanitation.

The water supplying the community is contaminated and does not have the minimum conditions for consumption. The Senator should remember that the channelling of the waters of the Doce river was made by Aracruz Cellulose with the justification of resolving water supply to the Villa do Riacho and Barra do Riacho, but today it can be seen that this water is for the exclusive use of Aracruz Cellulose. The Senator may check this "in situ." Additionally, we may also mention the tragic situation of the charcoal-makers, the mutilated workers, the thousands of unemployed chain-saw workers, and the other impacts well-known to those who effectively live in this State. There are already countless studies, surveys, photos, books, reports and videos telling of this situation, including reports of seminars organised in Vitoria with the participation of recognised specialists such as the geographer Aziz Nacib Ab’Saber. However, this production of knowledge is totally denied by the Aracruz Cellulosa scientists, who practice a type of science that ignores empirical knowledge, that is to say the history and experience of local communities. We ask the Senator: At whose service are these technicians?

Reply: This statement indicates that the Senator is contradicting himself by attacking Law 6,780/01 that is precisely aimed at fulfilling this role. At the same time, the Senator shows that he ignores the history and various studies and surveys carried out, that estimate that 50,000 hectares of the area were deforested and burnt by Aracruz Cellulose in the Municipality of Aracruz, Sao Mateus and Conceiçao da Barra in the sixties and the seventies, precisely to enable plantation of eucalyptus in low plain areas. These areas were flat, fertile and easily mechanised. The plantations would only seem to be sustainable for Aracruz Cellulose, as eucalyptus is its raw material. Furthermore plantations in this part of the world have the highest productivity (45m3/ha/year) leaving South Africa and Chile in second place with 20m3/ha/year.

For the local communities and the environment in general, sustainability of eucalyptus plantations is very much questioned, as it is a monoculture of trees with an extremely short cycle, demanding large amounts of chemical fertilisers and agro-toxics, a monoculture that does not contribute to increasing biodiversity, but on the contrary, does not make it possible to plant other types of trees for wood or crops and offering a relatively low rate of benefit for family-based agriculturalists.

Reply: Here it would seem that Senator Gerson Camata proposes substituting the Mata Atlantica by monoculture of eucalyptus trees. The Senator should be more careful in the exercise of his mandate and not reproduce the discourse of Aracruz Cellulose that attempts, in an absurd way, to legitimise its unsustainable "planted forests." The Senator shows a total lack of knowledge of the ecosystems of his own State, ecosystems having some of the greatest biodiversity in the world regarding fauna and flora and fulfilling social, environmental, ecological and economic functions that are already well-known. It only remains for the Senator to support the posters that Aracruz has put up in its eucalyptus plantations: "no hunting, wild animal refuge." Ironically, fauna does not live in this type of monocultures, so there are no birds or other animals living there, in particular because there are no fruits nor any water. If the Senator has any doubts in this respect, he should ask any indigenous person or inhabitant of the "Quilombos." These people would also be able to show the Senator the countless dry streams in the regions where they live, a process that started with the plantation of eucalyptus.

There are countless photos of environmental crimes committed by Aracruz Cellulose in the north of the State and in the south of Bahia, by having planted eucalyptus at the sources of water courses, in mangroves, bordering lagoons, streams and water-heads. And as if these irregularities were not enough, the company diverted the waters of the Doce river, through the Caboclo Bernardo Channel. According to the company, this was done to benefit those communities living in the zone the channel passed through, as if suddenly, the company was concerned over the welfare of these communities. In fact, the company, that does not pay for water consumption, needs it because its own sources of water are threatened. We inform the Senator that Aracruz Cellulose consumes 44m3 of water to produce one ton of pulp (according to 2000 data by the company itself). The company produces 3,561 tons of pulp a day, resulting in a consumption of 156,000m3 of water per day. It should also be mentioned that governor José Ignacio himself went to Brasilia to see the director of IBAMA (Brazilian Institute for the Environment), to allow the continuation of works held up by IBAMA-Espirito Santo due to legal questions. Why did the Senator not make any statement on these matters?

Reply: If this is true: where was this wealth applied? Given that dire poverty is becoming more serious in this state, the question is: who is getting this wealth? The Municipality of Conceicao da Barra, in spite of having 32,671 hectares of land held by Aracruz, receives a small piece of the "pie" received by the state through the ICMS (Tax on Circulation of Goods and Services). The only municipality in the state that receives benefits from the presence of the company in the state in terms of participation in that "pie" is Aracruz, that receives an ICMS value ten times greater that Conceiçao da Barra. It should also be noted that the State never benefited from this wealth, given that Aracruz Cellulose, without any type of legal right, spent years and years without making the corresponding contributions to ICMS, leading to several legal actions being taken by the State.

Unfortunately, following many legal disputes, the government tried to facilitate collecting the fiscal debts of certain companies (Aracruz, CVRD, CST, Samarco, etc.), accepting that they contribute with the building of some works such as hospitals, but much below the total value of the debts accumulated over so many years. This caused a serious prejudice to the municipalities of Espirito Santo as, by facilitating the collection of debts due to ICMS by these companies through agreements on exchange for works, the government left out the tax component (25%), which belonged to the municipalities, thus violating the Federal Constitution. This shows the power of the major companies with the politicians of our State. With the adoption of the Kandir Law, declaring imports free from ICMS, it is the State itself that is now indebted to Aractuz Cellulose. At the end of the year 2000, the value of this "debt" amounted to R$79.4 million of ICMS credits, according to the Aracruz auditor’s report

Regarding the new investment of US$830 million, US$600 million are being invested in the purchase of machinery and equipment, totally imported from European countries. Unfortunately these purchases are not taxable with ICMS, which also implies a loss of income amounting to US$73.8 million if a mean aliquot of 12.3% is taken, normally applied on imports. Therefore, there is no basis for the argument that Aracruz Cellulose’s trade transactions result in major tax contributions, considering the volume of fiscal waivers vis-à-vis the magnitude of the price of the goods entering and exiting their production units.

Reply: The only reason why Aracruz is investing in decontaminating the emissions from its mill is due to legal, social and environmental pressure, but above all to trade pressure. The company only started investing in decontaminating its emissions in 1991, after having contaminated the environment, the air and the soil in an uncontrolled manner for 13 years, that is to say, during the eighties, when there already existed more rigid regulations in most of the European countries. A proof of this was closure of the company’s port by the Greenpeace ship in 1992. Furthermore, a serious problem still persists: the company uses chlorine-based products in its bleaching process. In this process, organo-chloride compounds, such as dioxin are present, considered to be one of the most toxic products in the world. The EPA, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, has stated that those who regularly consume fish from waters close to pulp-mills run a 1000 times greater risk of developing certain types of cancer than those who do not.

In the nineties, Greenpeace launched a world campaign to totally eradicate chlorine from paper and pulp production processes. It was only in 1993 that Aracruz started producing almost 10% of its pulp without chlorine because, according to comments by the company itself "without this new technology we were going to loose sales of close to 150,000 tons a year." In this case, it was the German market, the most demanding market in the world. In spite of having reduced use, the company still uses chlorine-based products in 32.9% of the production process, continuing to contaminate the waters of the region and placing the population’s health at a risk. Another serious problem regarding contamination is that it is the company itself that controls contamination levels. The State Environment Secretariat (SEAMA), the body responsible for environmental control in the State, only receives data collected by the company, a situation that would be hard to think of in a so-called first world country. In fact, the existence of an independent control would be essential to guarantee transparent and true information. Today, all information is suspect.

Reply: In the first place, legislation (Law 6,780/01) at no time has addressed this issue. In the second place, the company has US$230 million to purchase land, which has meant disaster for family agriculture and for agrarian reform in Espirito Santo. The National Institute for Colonisation and Agrarian Reform (INCRA) in Espirito Santo has confirmed this claim.

Over the last two years it has been impossible to expropriate lands to settle families, as Aracruz pays up to three times more than what INCRA can offer, ironically with public funds received through BNDES. In the process of acquisition, the company has bought up coffee plantations, as in the case of the Barba Negra estate in Jaguaré, where some 20 tenant farming families were evicted. The coffee plants were pulled up and burnt to make way for eucalyptus. This is also the case in Linares, where, according to information from the vice-mayor of the Sooretama Municipality, an estate devoted to papaya plantations was purchased. This estate offered an average of 700 jobs. Today, some of these workers are knocking on the doors of the municipalities in the region, trying to obtain a basic food basket. It is for this reason that an agro-ecological map is urgently needed, and it is not possible that economic power should continue to prevail to the detriment of the interests of the majority of the people of Espirito Santo. Theirs should be the interests defended by the Senators.

Faced by so many issues, we totally support the establishment of a Parliamentary Investigation Commission (CPI), to analyse the irregularities mentioned with due seriousness. Why is it that Aracruz shows so much reluctance towards the establishment of a CPI? What does it have to hide? We also reaffirm our will that the agro-ecological mapping of Espirito Santo should take place in a transparent and participatory way. We will be vigilant before any attempt made at manipulating or putting pressure on compliance with Law 6,780/01. Furthermore, we would like to ask Senator Gerson Camata, who so vehemently came out in defence of Aracruz Cellulose, why he did not take up a similar position regarding the defence of family agriculture in the State, to enable the over 60,000 landless families in the State to settle, in defence of an overall demarcation of indigenous lands and in defence of the State’s biodiversity and water resources? And, finally, we publicly challenge Senator Gerson Camata, and his colleagues Paulo Hartung and Ricardo Santos, when they visit Aracruz, not to limit their visit to the Aracruz Cellulose company facilities, but to visit the indigenous and fishing communities. Also to visit other affected communities at the north of the State, such as the charcoal-makers, "Quilombos" and family farmers.

The Senators should be able to listen to the people, because it is them, beyond their voting capacity, who possess an elaboration of their situation that is irrefutable by scientific knowledge. We demand respect for the people of Espirito Santo! These are the people that the Senators need to represent in Brasilia and not a company such as Aracruz Cellulose. These people demand an agrarian reform and serious agricultural and environmental polices on the part of the governments in order to guarantee the presence of these families in rural areas and a better future for the whole population of the State!

Vitoria/Espirito Santo, 11 March, 2002.