- The outcome of the Biodiversity Convention's COP6: mixed feelings

The Sixth Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity has concluded and it is difficult to say whether it was a success or a failure. "Mixed feelings" would perhaps best describe what many people attending the meeting felt, particularly regarding the issue of forests, which was one of the main items of the agenda.

The main products of the COP were the Ministerial Declaration and the adoption of a Programme of Work on Forest Biological Diversity.

All in all, the Ministerial Declaration contains many more positive than negative elements. It acknowledges that biodiversity continues to be destroyed and that "with some honourable exceptions, our responses are too few, too little and too late." The ministers commit themselves "to move from dialogue to action" and "to the full implementation" of the Work Programme on Forests. They even admit that trade-related agreements may be contradictory to forest biodiversity conservation and thus call for "synergy and mutual supportiveness" between the CBD and international trade-related agreements, "in particular with the World Trade Organization." All this is extremely positive.

Perhaps the main negative aspect of the Declaration lies in its point 15(b), that reaffirms that States have "the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental policies" as long as they don't affect other countries' environment. This appears to ignore the fact that the Convention is a legally-binding instrument which, when ratified, involves the obligation to comply with it. Such statement thus implies that countries need not comply with the Convention under the "sovereignty" argument.

The Programme of Work --prepared last November by the CBD's Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice-- is in theory also basically a very useful document. However, what the COP did was to ensure that no-one had the obligation of actually implementing it. This was achieved in point 11, that is preceded by the following statement: "Underlining the sovereign rights and responsibilities of countries over their forests and the biodiversity within them."

That means that, under the guise of defending their "sovereign rights", governments can do whatever they want. Furthermore, point 11 says that they "should" (not that they "must") implement the programme of work "in the context of their priorities and needs," and that activities "will be prioritized based on country and regionally specific needs, national determination, legislation, circumstances and priorities concerning forest-related issues, and their national forest and biodiversity strategies." The obvious question is: what's the use then of an international legally-binding agreement --ratified by sovereign states-- if there is no need to comply with the resulting obligations?

In fact, that wording highlights the main drawback of this Convention: the lack of political will --in most of the North and in most of the South-- to comply with it. The prevailing globalized economy seems to leave little space for biodiversity conservation. Southern countries destroy their forests to increase exports for debt repayment, and to achieve a type of "development" that is ever more distant. Northern countries benefit from that same destruction though the obtention of cheap raw materials --wood, pulp, minerals, oil, agricultural products-- and financial returns from investments in the South that result in forest destruction.

Within that framework, political will becomes the key issue for forest conservation. Country level pressure, coupled with international support may change the current inertia and lead to positive changes at both the national and international levels. In this context, the Ministerial Declaration and the Programme of Work may prove to be useful for increasing pressure for the implementation of forest-related agreements. Governments that do not comply with their commitments --both at home and abroad-- should be exposed, so as to increase public pressure on them in order to generate the necessary conditions for the implementation of actions to truly address forest biodiversity loss. The two above mentioned documents can be a good starting point.

top 

LOCAL STRUGGLES AND NEWS

AFRICA

- Cameroon: Forestry Group Rougier accused in French Tribunal

On 22 March 2002, Master Council William Bourdon placed civil charges in the hands of Investigating Magistrates of Paris filed in the name of seven Cameroonian villagers condemning criminal destruction of property, forgery and the utilization of forgery, fraud, posession of stolen goods, and corruption of officials against both directors of the Doumé Affiliated Forestry Company (SFID) group and the Cameroonian Legal Society, as well as their mother corporation ROUGIER S.A.

These charges are the result of in-depth, on-site investigation by Friends of the Earth-France and SHERPA. The charges condemn what is essentially summarized as the illicit pillaging of forest resources to the detriment of Cameroonian populations, offenses which have motivated Friends of the Earth-France to form a private party in the suit.

For the villagers, these charges present the opportunity to see those responsible for the infractions committed identified and brought to justice, as well as the opportunity to be compensated for these offenses. They expect the French justice to guarantee an independant and impartial judge in this case. The local situation is corrupt as a result of the power of the forestry companies to deprive them of this fundamental right.

In the charges, the plaintiffs expect to advocate the fact that the Rougier S.A. Group, taking the clear overlapping and interdependence between the two entities into account, must be considered an accomplice to the acts committed by its affiliate SFID, as well as the associated French directors.

These charges against the ROUGIER S.A. group and its directors before French Tribunals constitute a first case for Friends of the Earth-France and SHERPA, and make clear the fact that an extraterritorial act on the part of private entities does not systematically guarantee impunity to these entities. Friends of the Earth-France and SHERPA, in cooperation with foreign associations, will continue their partnership through a network of foreign legal advocates to, upon the realization of a feasibility study, envision further initiatives both in France and elsewhere.

By: Frédéric Castell Friends of the Earth-France, foret@amisdelaterre.org 

top 

- Congo, Republic: Increased logging activities

The Congo Basin contains the second largest area of tropical rainforest in the world after the Amazon Basin. Renowned for its high biodiversity, this forest is also home to culturally diverse peoples who depend on forest resources for their livelihoods. The Republic of Congo (Congo Brazzaville) is one of the countries situated in the Congo Basin, with approximately 21.5 million hectares of forest. The country has recently emerged from a bitter civil war, during which timber exploitation was dramatically reduced, and as stability has increased in the region, exploitation of natural resources has also increased. Timber companies are eager to resume, or begin, exploitation of the resource-rich forests of Congo Brazzaville, and forestry operations in the south of the country have resumed, with the remote primary forests of the north, which were largely unallocated prior to the civil war, now also being allocated for timber exploitation.

Logging operations will increasingly disrupt the lives of local people, especially Pygmies, who depend on the forest for their livelihoods. As the north is being opened up to logging operations, the demand for bushmeat to supply workers’ communities will increase and will contribute to the impoverishment of forest opened up by roads. This will have dire consequences for Pygmy groups who use forest areas for their subsistence activities. Pygmies generally find it difficult to obtain reasonably remunerated employment in logging towns, and they face discrimination from Bantus. Unless efforts are made to involve Pygmy people in the management of their forests and for them to share in the profits gained, future generations are likely to feel cheated of their heritage.

An expansion of the timber industry is also facilitated by the policies pursued by the government to liberalise their economy. With the support of the IMF, Congo Brazzaville will liberalise its natural resource sector to maximise profits, and to those ends a new forestry law was introduced in 2000. Henri Djombo, the forestry minister, has estimated that the log production in Congo Brazzaville will double, or triple within the next two to three year period.

As a result of government policies to liberalise the economy, new allocations have been made and large scale logging operations are now underway in the northern regions of Sangha and Likouala. German owned Congolaise Industrielle des Bois (CIB) is the largest forestry operator in the country (1.15 million hectares), but other companies are also moving in to secure their position in the profitable industry --particularly in the previously unexploited north regions. The following is a list of some of the most important companies involved in Northern Congo (March 2001), including each one's concession areas (in hectares):

Companies are also investing in increased logging activities in the south. For example, the Portuguese company FORALAC recently reported an investment of eight billion F CFA (USD 11.4 million) and the creation of 500 jobs in its concessions. In addition to established European companies, Oriental companies are also now investing in Congo Brazzaville. For example, the Chinese company Man Fai Tai recently bought logging machinery and equipment from the Malaysian company Innovest. On January 18, 2002 Innovest announced that they entered into an agreement with Man Fai Tai Congo Ltd S.A.R.L to sell machines and equipment that were purchased in 1997 for the logging concessions in the Democratic Republic of Congo (ex-Zaire) and the Republic of Congo. Man Fai Tai has three logging concessions in the south of Congo Brazzaville.

As a result of the expansion of forestry activities, Congo Brazzaville is emerging as an important supplier of tropical timber to Europe; and Germany, for example, has increased its imports of timber from this country. Species exported from Congo Brazzaville include Sapelli and Sipo. The commencement of logging in the north has also provided the impetus to build new roads linking with Cameroon and the Central African Republic, and all timber from the northern regions is exported via Douala in Cameroon, making it difficult to estimate exactly how much timber is being exported from Congo Brazzaville.

At a meeting in Paris in March 2002, Henri Djombo, the Congolese forestry minister recognised that illegal logging was occurring in tropical Africa. He further stated that in order to fight illegal logging and introduce sustainable forest practises, democratisation must be encouraged, and funding must be made available to tackle the problem. He cited his country as an example of how lack of access to resources results in weak government control of the forestry sector. Djombo explained that the government of Congo Brazzaville only has 300 agents and foresters, when at least 2000 are required to do the job.

In conclusion, the situation is changing rapidly in Congo Brazzaville, and export of timber is up from the low caused by the civil war. The government is actively pursuing an export oriented economic strategy, and aim to double, or even triple log production. At the same time as concessions are being granted and companies are starting their operations, the Minister responsible for the forests has recognised that illegal logging is taking place, and that the government are lacking human resources to effectively oversee the industry.

By: Forests Monitor, e-mail: fmonitor@gn.apc.org 

top 

- Ghana: Protected areas at the expense of people do not guarantee conservation

Ghana has created a number of protected areas --managed by the Forestry Commission and the Department of Wildlife-- as a means of ensuring biodiversity conservation. However, the process of creation of some of those areas has generated a number of problems which explains the failure of many protected areas to fulfil the objective for which they were established. Among other problems explaining such situation, mention must be made of issues relating to land tenure, land rights of communities and law enforcement.

The Institute of Cultural Affairs (ICA) conducted a research in a protected area in Ghana --the Kalakpa Reserve-- located in the Volta region of Ghana, a few kilometres from Ho, the regional capital. Before the park was created, the land was occupied by migrant farmers through an arrangement with the land-owners. The farmers have lived there legitimately for generation after generation.

The study has proven that a main problem and challenge at the reserve --created through an agreement between the government and the land-owners-- is that the communities living in the reserve were not consulted about its creation. As long as the interest of the migrant families was not taken into account at the outset, it has been very hard to move forward. So while there is a tripartite interest in the area --the local landowners, the settler farmers and the government-- the negotiation for acquisition totally ignored the interest of these settler farmers. They have farms in this designated protected area, settlements which keep on growing and even cattle farms.

The government is now describing the settler farmers as squatters and sees as its responsibility to get them out, although without any appreciable success. But they are not squatters, they are long-standing inhabitants who must have a voice in land use activities and changes.

The farmers are challenging the authorities; they want to continue carrying out their economic activities; they want to see their rights to remain in the area respected. The government has responded by attempting to compensate the people monetarily. But the whole process of valuing a supposed protected area and the payment of compensation continues to be an impossible exercise. As long as the government affixes arbitrary values which are low and have no relationship with the livelihoods of the people, compensations will continue being rejected by many farmers. Those who accept the compensation are unaware of the conditions at the place they are relocated or intend to be relocated to. As a result, they either don’t go at all or, if they do, they return almost immediately to their original home.

As in many other similar cases, this experience clearly shows that the whole process of creating and maintaining protected areas should be addressed taking into account the interest of all relevant stakeholders, and the implementation of the law must attend to the needs and rights of holders. The establishment of protected areas must not be antagonistic to local peoples' livelihoods, and fundamental human rights cannot be violated in the process. Unless the creation of a reserve is done properly, you may have a protected area, but biodiversity conservation will not be at all guaranteed.

top 

- Tanzania: Traditional knowledge in forest restoration

Forest restoration has become a necessity in many parts of the world, particularly where local communities are suffering from the social and environmental impacts resulting from deforestation. The success of this activity depends on the involvement of the communities themselves, based on their traditional knowledge regarding resource use and conservation. The following example serves to illustrate this.

The Shinyanga region lies in central Tanzania, south of Lake Victoria, and is occupied mainly by the agropastoral Sukuma people. They have provided a key tool for forest restoration, with their indigenous natural resource management system called "ngitili", which involves conservation of fallow and range lands by encouraging vegetation regeneration, particularly for browse and fodder. The Sukuma have had to deal with erratic and poorly distributed rainfall with high variability between seasons, so they have developed a response to acute fodder shortages caused by long and frequent droughts.

The Shinyanga region used to be extensively forested with dense woodland and bushland species, and good cover of understorey grasses. But, massive clearing of forests to eradicate tsetse flies between 1940 and 1965, and impacts of intensive cropping leading to clearing of land for agricultural expansion, rapidly declining land productivity, and shortages of herding labour, have prompted the establishment of communal ngitilis --with an average size of 50 hectares-- which together with individual ngilitis now cover over 70,000 hectares of restored woodland.

The traditional ngitili system of the Sukuma people provided a good entry point for forest restoration through local community efforts. Objectives of ngitili have been expanded to cover other wood products and services required by the community while retaining the original objective of providing fodder for the dry season. Currently, traditional and scientific experiences are shared in management of ngitilis to facilitate restoration of forests and improvement of community livelihood.

Ngitili areas have led to soil conservation and reduced soil erosion, consequently contributing to improvement of agriculture and livestock production. Important naturally regenerating indigenous trees are being left and managed on farm and grazing land. To ensure that the ngitili were guarded and respected, traditional law known as mchenya was applied, supervised by the village security committee.

This example proves that forest restoration is not a technical issue but one of community involvement and adaptation of traditional knowledge systems. The revitalisation of ngitili has thus contributed to improved livelihood security through the restoration of woodlands which now provide a wider range of goods and services for the local people.

top 

ASIA

- Laos: IFC backs Australian gold mine

On 28 February 2002, the International Finance Corporation, the private sector arm of the World Bank, approved a US$30 million loan to develop a gold mine at Sepon in Savannakhet province in Laos. The mine, which will be the largest mining operation in Laos, is 80 per cent owned by Oxiana Resources, an Australian mining company, and 20 per cent by Rio Tinto.

Construction of the US$45 million project is due to be completed by the end of 2002. Preliminary works, including upgrading roads and preparations for the gold plant, have already begun at the site and the first gold production from the mine is forecast for December 2002. Oxiana estimates that the gold deposits at Sepon are worth about US$1 billion.

Rio Tinto started exploration for gold in the area near the Vietnamese border, in the early 1990s. However, Rio Tinto considered the deposits it found to be too small and in August 2000, the company sold 80 per cent of its Lao operations to Oxiana. Oxiana gained the right to explore, develop and extract any mineral resources in a 2,000 square kilometre area in Laos.

The companies have negotiated generous subsidies from the Lao government. For the first two years, Oxiana and Rio Tinto are exempt from corporate tax and employees are exempt from paying income tax. For the next two years, corporate tax will be paid, but at only half the usual rate. As the mine will only operate for seven years, this means that the government will only receive corporate tax at the full rate for three years. Meanwhile, there are no taxes or restraints on repatriation of money from the project. The government has waived duties on imported equipment. In return, the Lao government is to receive 2.5 per cent of the value of the ore mined (but only after Oxiana has subtracted the costs of selling, transport, smelting, refining and other treatment costs). The government also has an option to buy a 10 per cent share in the mine.

Oxiana and Rio Tinto plan to use the profits from the gold mine to develop a US$100 million copper mine at nearby Khanong. The companies estimate that there could be US$ 2 billion worth of copper in Khanong. Although the copper mine is described in project documents as Phase 2 of the operation, IFC has approved its loan without studies of the combined impact of both the gold and copper mines.

Villagers' forests, farmland and swiddens will be cleared to make way for the mines. The Sepon gold mine will cover an area of 27.6 square kilometres, straddling the Nam Kok river, a tributary of the Mekong. Fisheries will be damaged. Huge volumes of waste earth and rock will be dumped. The local water table will drop. Cyanide, a chemical which is extremely toxic to fish, wildlife, plants and human beings, will be used to extract gold from ore. Leaks of cyanide from mining operations are common.

To make way for the mine, two villages with a total population of 120 people, will be moved. The mine will also take up land within other village's territory. The project's Resettlement Action Plan, acknowledges that in these villages, "relocation might eventually be necessary" and adds that "one other village, not currently listed for relocation, Ban Vieng (25 households), may require relocation."

Oxiana commissioned NSR Environmental Consultants of Australia and Earth Systems Lao to carry out an Environmental and Social Impact Assessment, which was completed in November 2001. IFC describes the project's environmental and social impact assessment as "detailed", yet the consultants do not know whether three endangered species of fish live in the Nam Kok River. They also do not seem to know what the impact of the mine would be on these species. The consultants report that "should these species actually occur", the impacts could range from "severe" to "very minor". Based on this scant information, IFC decided to back the project.

IFC's support primarily benefits the companies developing the project, Rio Tinto and Oxiana, while putting local communities' livelihoods and environment at risk.

Rio Tinto is the world's largest mining corporation, with over 60 mines and processing plants in more than 40 countries. The company has an appalling record of human rights violations and of destruction of communities and their lands, rivers and forests. A 1998 motion to the UK Parliament described Rio Tinto as "probably the most uncaring and ruthless company in the world."

Oxiana Resources was formed by Owen Hegarty, a former executive at Rio Tinto. Based in Melbourne, Oxiana is a gold and copper mining company. As well as the Sepon project, Oxiana owns Dalton Pacific Resources in the Philippines, with six gold and copper mine projects in Northern Luzon. The company also owns shares in mines in Cyprus and Australia.

IFC hopes that its involvement in the Sepon gold mine will encourage further mining projects in Laos: "The investment in the Project will help to increase confidence of the investment community in mining and other sectors of the economy." The World Bank Group's mission is supposedly to alleviate poverty, but IFC appears more concerned with helping the rich get richer.

By: Chris Lang, e-mail: http://chrislang.org 

top 

- Malaysia: Self-defense blockades from Sarawak indigenous peoples

Once again the indigenous peoples of Sarawak's rainforests are in the headlines. They have been long suffering and resisting encroachment in their ancestral lands by activities which on behalf of "progress" destroy their livelihoods and culture: logging, mining, oil palm plantations, pulpwood plantations, hydroelectric dams, resorts development (see WRM bulletins 41 and 43).

Despite promises from the government and agreements to previous negotiations needed to enter the area, the biodiversity rich rainforests of the Penan, Kayan and Kenyah indigenous peoples groups in the Malaysian state of Sarawak are being constantly encroached by logging companies like Interhill Logging Sdn. Bhd., Woodman Sdn. Bhd., and Samling Sdn. Bhd. Also Besungai Quarry Sdn. Bhd. is extracting sand from the Baram riverbank near the longhouses of the Kayan and Kenyah communities of Uma Akeh and Sungai Puak.

"Their rights to traditional native lands have been ignored by the logging companies and state government, thus forcing them into lives of difficulty because of deprivation of forest and river resources." "All promises of the Sarawak government concerning biosphere conservation, payment of fair compensation, assistance funds and infrastructure have not been fulfilled," denounces Sahabat Alam Malaysia (SAM-Friends of the Earth, Malaysia).

That is why the Penan, Kayan and Kenyah have decided to stage road blocks --human barricades and wooden structures put up at strategic points across access roads to prevent the movement of logging and plantation companies' vehicles-- into the disputed logging sites. At least five blockades have been put up and one protest has been staged by several native communities since March 27^th, 2002. This is the first time in more than ten years that numerous Sarawak native communities have organized to put up blockades simultaneously in various locations to draw the attention of the Malaysian authorities to their plight.

In a press release, SAM expressed particular concern about the predicament of the Penan communities, who were originally nomadic hunter-gatherers, and resorted to erect the blockades as a desperate measure to draw the authorities’ attention to their plight and the continued violation of their rights, as detailed below:

* Rights to their customary land have long been ignored by the logging companies and the State Government. This has resulted in them having to endure increasingly severe living conditions due to the depletion of forest and river resources and their livelihood.

* Most of them are living in dire conditions without adequate food supply, proper housing facilities, accessible healthcare and education services and other basic necessities like clean water and electricity.

* Even the settled Penan communities are also not able to make a living as they have no experience in farming and little assistance in terms of technical training and seed access.

* All the promises by the Sarawak State Government on biosphere reserves, fair compensation process and financial and infrastructure assistance have not been fulfilled.

Before the blockades are dismantled, they would like to see concrete actions taken by both the government authorities and the companies to:

* Fulfil their demands on the recognition of their rights, a fair and transparent compensation process, and meaningful state assistance so that their living conditions can be improved.

* Halt all logging operations and plantation activities on their customary land. They maintain that in the future they should be consulted before any economic activities commence on their native land.

* Recognise that the people have the right to choose development models that best suit them. They assert that development plans must be people-centred and their implementation process must include meaningful participation and prior informed consent from the people.

To support the struggle of Sarawak indigenous peoples, you can send a letter of concern to Malaysian authorities. A sample letter is available at http://www.wrm.org.uy/alerts/Sarawak240402.html 

top 

- Thailand: Senate blocks draft community forest bill

Thailand’s Upper House of Parliament or Senate recently blocked the passage of the draft Community Forest Bill and proposed amendments that would prevent local people having a greater role in managing Thailand’s forests and ultimately lead to the eviction of thousands of forest-dwelling communities.

The draft bill was approved by a majority of Members of Parliament (MP) in the Lower House earlier last year. But the senate amendments have forced the draft bill back to the Lower House for review by a committee comprising members of both the Upper and Lower Houses of Parliament.

The draft bill recognises the legal status of communities living in and around Thailand’s National Forest Reserves and proposes the establishment of community forests by rural communities to manage forest areas in cooperation with the Royal Forestry Department.

The result of more than ten years of negotiations between government officials particularly the Royal Forestry Department (RFD), village people and nongovernmental organisations (NGOs), the draft community forest bill would be Thailand’s first legislation recognising the rights of forest-based communities to use, manage and protect their forests.

The draft community forest bill is also one of the first pieces of legislation to use a Constitutional mechanism that allows local people to propose legislation with the support of 50,000 signatures --local people from all over Thailand gathered 52,698 signatures and presented the community forest bill to Parliament in early 2000.

Joni Odachao, a Karen leader, stated: "Village people proposed the draft community forest bill according to the Article 170 of the Constitution. But our senators have disheartened us."

The senate amended Articles 18, 29 and 31 in the draft community forest bill. Article 18 of the draft bill states that the right to propose an area of community forest is limited to groups comprised of at least 50 persons aged 18 and above from a traditional community that is native or indigenous to the area, which has been actively engaged in forest preservation for at least the previous five years. In fact, this Article evolved from Thailand’s Constitution of 1997 that supports the participation of local communities in the management of natural ecosystems.

The senators amended the article by excluding communities living in "protected forest areas" such as areas declared as national parks, wildlife sanctuaries and classified watersheds.

Supporters of the bill say the exclusion of community forests from protected forests threatens the livelihoods of hundreds of rural people particularly ethnic communities who live in and around national parks and upland watershed areas.

Article 29 allows a community forest group to request changes to the boundaries of community forest areas for the improvement of its management plan, or for the revocation of the entire or part of a community forest, provided valid and clear reasons are provided to the Community Forestry Committee.

The senators voted to prohibit any expansion of a designated community forest area. On Article 31, the senators stated that local communities require the permission of Thailand’s Royal Forestry Department in order to gather forest products.

The bill’s supporters say the prohibition on expansion of community forest areas and restrictions on forest use would discourage local forest protection initiatives and drastically limit the participation of forest-dependent communities in using, protecting and managing forests.

Senators who voted against the bill included Thailand’s leading legal experts such as human rights lawyers Thongbai Thongpao and Sak Koseangreung and members of the Constitution Drafting Council such as Panas Tassaniyanond and Kaewsan Attibhoti.

Explaining his vote, Thongbai stated that he wanted to ensure the bill would not have a loophole to cause deforestation in the future. He told Thailand’s English-language newspaper The Nation that: "For the present the forest dwellers could behave well in managing the forest, but in the next ten years when their community grows, how could they survive if they don’t encroach on more forest areas?"

Both Kaewsan and Thongbai explained that they were concerned about the rights of people who had occupied plots of forest before the land was declared protected. "The community forest and communities in the forests are not the same issue. They should call on the government to revoke the protected status if they can verify that they occupied the land before the Royal Forestry Department declared the protected area," Kaewsan said.

Surapol Takham of the Northern Farmers Network, a coalition of local community organisations in north Thailand supporting the community forest bill, expressed disappointment with the Senate’s views of the bill. "The public believes that the draft bill will divide and distribute the forests among villagers. In fact, the bill aims to make us responsible for protecting nature in our communities. It doesn’t allow a person or group of people to live in, or make a living in the forest," he said.

Covering about 15-17 per cent of the total land area, Thailand’s forest areas contain an estimated eight to 15 million people farming a quarter to a third of the country’s agricultural fields. The country’s protected area system comprising 119 national parks (excluding 27 marine national parks) and 55 wildlife sanctuaries cover more than 240,000 hectares.

More than 8,000 "community forests" all over Thailand are being used, protected and managed by local communities, some over several generations. The draft bill was intended to legalise these community forest areas and provide official recognition for local people’s forest conservation efforts.

However, the RFD and some nature conservation groups such as the Dhammanat Foundation in North Thailand have consistently opposed the draft bill’s proposal to establish community forests inside national parks, wildlife sanctuaries or classified watersheds.

For RFD officials and nature conservationists, rural people’s forest-based activities such as gathering forest products, rotational farming or subsistence agriculture are considered inherently destructive.

Stemming from a "science of forestry" with its historical roots in the industrialised countries, the conservationist ideology separates forests from rural societies, local knowledge systems and livelihoods.

Through simplifying and reducing diverse local contexts and natural ecosystems, forests are divided into "wilderness" areas where human activity is strictly prohibited or areas for commercial activities such as logging or establishing commercial plantations for the timber and pulp industry.

The conservationist approach does not allow for a variety of conservation areas and village-level conservation activities that involve rural interaction and cooperative decision-making on the use and protection of natural ecosystems.

Such type of nature conservation groups and forestry officials therefore prefer village people living in forests to be either resettled or to have severe restrictions imposed on their use of forests.

The conservationist approach, however, has spectacularly failed either to prevent the continuing deforestation of Thailand’s remaining forests from widespread illegal logging involving powerful business interests or to support the forest-based livelihoods of rural communities.

The RFD’s previous attempts at forcible resettlement of communities living in protected areas have increased the impoverishment of local communities, worsened rural conflicts and caused further loss of forest areas as displaced people clear forests elsewhere.

Given the existing fierce antagonism of the RFD and some nature conservation groups to rural communities living in and using forest areas, the senate amendments pose a serious threat to the livelihoods of thousands of rural communities especially ethnic peoples as they face eviction and the loss of their homes, fallows, fields and forests.

Pinkaew Luangaramsri, an anthropologist in Chiang Mai University, explained that the Senate amendments reflect the increasingly powerful view of an elite in Thai society that is "anti-rural" and seeks to maintain forests for "wilderness conservation" and "recreation".

"The debate on the draft community bill is essentially a class conflict: between rural communities who depend on forests for their livelihoods and an urban-based elite and middle-class that wants to preserve "wilderness" to be used for recreation, trekking and tourism," she stated.

top 

- Thailand: United States' carbon sink plantation proposal rejected

Under pressure from Thai civil society groups, the Thai government rejected a "forest conservation" proposal by the United States (US) that would establish tree plantations to meet the US targets for reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in return for reducing debt owed by Thailand to the US.

The US proposal would transfer US$12.6 million (Bt550 million) comprising repayment of Thailand's debt into a "Tropical Forest Conservation Fund" (TFCF) over a period of 28 years. In return, the TFCF would establish tree plantations in Thailand to absorb CO2 and allow the US to obtain "emission credits" for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.

Thailand's local community groups, nongovernmental organisations (NGOs), and academics pressured the government to reject the proposal stating that the risks involved for local communities and forests in Thailand were not worth the money Thailand would gain in debt reduction.

On 1 March 2002, after concluding a two-hour meeting among five government

ministries about the proposal, the Thai Foreign Minister Surakiart Sathirathai said that the government decided not to accept the proposal because the science and agricultural ministries, which dealt with the examination of the draft proposal, felt that the US had not responded to Thailand's main concerns.

Without giving details, Mr Surakiart said these concerns involved questions of access to forests and "carbon credits". The minister added that negotiations between the two governments would continue and if the US government accepted Thailand's position, the agreement might be signed next year.

"But our stance will not change. That is, we will not trade off our forest resources and 'carbon credit' for debt reduction," he added.

The government wanted the agreement to be delinked from "carbon credits" under the Kyoto Protocol (which Thailand has not yet ratified). Without this delinkage, Thailand in future may not receive help from industrial countries in the reduction of greenhouse gases.

The Kyoto Protocol requires industrialised countries to reduce emissions of "greenhouse gases" such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. However, those countries can get carbon credits --permits to pollute - if they spend money to plant trees as "carbon sinks" in developing countries to "absorb" some of the CO2.

The amount of CO2 consumed by these sinks would then be subtracted from the amount of CO2 emitted by these rich countries. However, questions remain over the effectiveness of carbon sinks since there is no reliable method of calculating the amount of CO2 removed from the atmosphere by sinks, or even of calculating the CO2 emissions likely to occur as a result of establishing tree plantations as sinks.

Decharat Sukkumnoed of the Thai environmental group Sustainable Energy Network said: "I believe Washington would keep trying to urge Thailand to establish the fund because they could claim carbon credits from such a programme. The Thai government should make it clear that we would not let industrialised countries claim credits over reforestation projects in our country."

Saneh Chamarik, chairperson of Thailand's National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), said: "The government should follow the Constitution by allowing the public, independent bodies and academics as well as people's organisations to participate in the decision-making process on the agreement.

"The government should not risk our biological resources in exchange for a cut in our debt. It's time to show that Thailand will no longer surrender to unfair agreements that clearly serve US interests."

Another concern is that the US "debt for forest" proposal would also provide access for US corporations and researchers to Thailand's biological diversity.

Jakkrit Kuanpoth, director of the NHRC's Research and Rule of Law Bureau, said the details of the proposal were similar to the US's own 1998 Tropical Forest Conservation Act (TFC Act).

"If we agree to the proposal then this means that the Thai government accepts that the US law can be enforced on Thai territory and any national law and regulations that violates the US law cannot be implemented," he said.

According to Jakkrit, the 1998 TFC Act establishes the US's policy of supporting and seeking protection for tropical forests around the world.

Jakkrit said the policy, however, was based on the US's concerns about how it could commercially benefit from the diversity of biological resources in tropical forest areas that can be developed into pharmaceutical and other products.

Under the TFCF, Thailand would not be able to enforce its laws on biodiversity, protection of natural resources and intellectual property but conform to US laws as per the original proposal.

"It is obvious that the real goal of the US in the proposal is to use Thai biological resources to serve its own pharmaceutical and agricultural industry as well as to collect credit in reducing greenhouse gases [by setting up tree plantations under the Fund]," he said.

Srisuwan Kuankachorn of the Bangkok-based environmental group, Project for Ecological Recovery, states that the TFCF is an example of how industrialised governments continue to try and to buy their way out of solving the problems of climate change rather than taking concrete steps to reduce their emissions. "The project follows the pattern of neoclassical economic development that has caused the environmental problems such as global warming in the first place," he said.

Over the past several years, industrialised countries particularly the US have attempted to avoid making cuts in their greenhouse gas emissions as required by the Kyoto Protocol by proposing projects similar to the TFCF. Complaining that it would affect their economies, the governments of these nations --in particular the US, Canada, Australia and Japan-- are unwilling to take effective action in their own countries, and are effectively seeking to transfer the burden of solving the problems of climate change to developing countries.

In fact, industrialised countries have already polluted their "share" of the atmosphere. Historically, industrialised countries are responsible for up to 90 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions. The US alone is responsible for around 25 per cent of annual emissions of greenhouse gases, although it has yet to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.

In an article titled "Democracy or Carbocracy", Larry Lohmann of the Cornerhouse, a research and solidarity organisation based in the United Kingdom, states, "The Kyoto Protocol encourages rich countries who already use more than their share of the world's carbon sinks and stocks to buy still more of them --using cash that has itself been accumulated partly through a history of overexploiting those sinks and stocks."

According to the article, the Kyoto Protocol gives the rich the right to emit extra greenhouse gases in exchange for planting or "maintaining" trees or soils in poor countries or in their own rural areas. Subsequently, local people not only have to give up their rights to future use of the land but these projects imply that a country also must relinquish the option of using the plantation areas in its own "CO2 budgets" when, as is likely, the Kyoto Protocol is expandable to include developing countries.

The TFCF and other similar "carbon credit" programmes to establish tree plantations as carbon sinks would not only damage local livelihoods but also sanction fossil-fuel related pollution elsewhere, both at mining and oil-drilling sites and around energy generating plants, with disproportionate effects on the poor around the world.

However, these attempts by industrialised countries to establish "carbon sinks" and avoid reductions in their greenhouse gas emissions are not going unopposed by local community groups in developing countries. In Thailand, the Assembly of the Poor, a country-wide coalition of farmers and local community organisations, submitted an open letter to the Prime Minister's Office demanding that the Thai government act cautiously over TFCF and other similar projects. The letter stated said that it was not worth exchanging the country's bioresources for a small amount of money.

top 

CENTRAL AMERICA

- Central America: International forum against dams

From March 21 to 23, men and women from 98 organizations and communities in 21 countries of the world gathered in Guatemala to express the general concern caused by the plans of construction of dams for various purposes in different regions.

During the meeting, called "Foro Mesoamericano Por la Vida" (Meso-American Forum For Life) the participants shared information and experiences, and analized the negative environmental, cultural and socio-economic impacts already caused by these projects and the potential damages they entail.

top 

- Panamá: Protected areas vs. indigenous peoples

The accelerated destruction of forests is one of the most serious environmental problems of Panama, which at present retains only one third of its original forest cover. The best solution found by the State to tackle this problem has been to define protected areas, under the name of "parks", which are generally inhabited by indigenous peoples. This is what happened, for instance, in the Darien National Park, where approximately 40 communities of the Kuna people (Pucuru and Paya) live, or in the La Amistad International Park, where both Naso-Teribe and Bri-Bri peoples live. The establishment of protected areas in these territories implies a ban on hunting, fishing, plant growing and the traditional use of natural resources, and therefore it affects the subsistence of these peoples whose cosmology focuses on their relationship with Mother Earth.

Kuna, Emberá, Wounaan, Buglé, Naso and Bri Bri are among the indigenous peoples inhabiting Panama, and account for approximately 8.3% of the population of the country. The Kunas inhabit the region Kuna Yala, a stretch of rainforest of 200 km. along the Caribbean coast, which includes the Islands of San Blas --some 365 small islands. The Kuna population is estimated at 40.000 people (25% of the total indigenous population), dwelling in 40 islands and 12 villages along the coast. Their arrival in the area, in the sacred place of mountain Takarkunyala, is prior to the creation of the State of Panama, a fact that does not prevent the National Environmental Authority (ANAM according to its acronym in Spanish) from forbidding them now to use this territory according to their traditional ways. The Kunas’ livelihood is mostly based on hunting, agriculture and fishing, but they have also worked for decades with tourists, not always with satisfactory results.

Panama has ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity, which aims at the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of natural resources and the equitable sharing of the benefits derived from the use of natural resources. Article 8j of the Convention also establishes that the States, subject to their own legislation, are to respect, preserve and maintain the knowledge, innovations and practices of the indigenous peoples in reference to the use of the natural resources found in their territories. This means that the States should respect the principle of spirituality and sacredness, which are the practice of the indigenous people in reference to the use of the natural resources that surround them.

The government’s policy of exclusion of indigenous peoples from the protected areas, is therefore not in compliance with the Convention, since national conservation programmes do not develop protected areas under the concept of ecosystem, and therefore, trees and animals are taken into account but not the human beings that inhabit them, that is, the indigenous peoples. However, it has been the knowledge of certain practices and uses, also concerning spirituality and sacredness, which has enabled the conservation of these ecosystems for milennia by the indigenous peoples.

At present, the project of the Meso-American Biological Corridor (Corredor Biológico Mesoamericano - CBM) is a way of providing candies to hungry people. It is composed of a set of small agriculture and forestry projects which lack continuity, and do not solve the problem since this situation requires an integrated approach. Problems have also arisen in reference to the administration of the CBM, since at the time of its implementation, Panama’s national authorities use the law to try to impose their projects, which frequently results in contradictions with the traditional authorities of the region.

The main demand of the indigenous peoples is the legalization and protection of their territories, including the natural resources within them. All human activities that deteriorate natural resources in order to extract them imply a violation of indigenous people’s religious and spiritual life. The Kuna people do not recognize the jurisdiction of national authorities, because they intervene through activities which have not been consulted with the Kuna people, and which contravene the provisions of article 8j of the Convention on Biological Diversity requiring the approval of indigenous peoples to meet the principle of prior consent.

The Kuna people were present in The Hague at the 6th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity to explain their experience. The Work Group on Forests insisted on the fact that the Kuna people should be involved in the action programme in order to ensure their rights in the area, in compliance with article 8j that indigenous peoples be involved in decision-making.

Another concern of the Kuna people is that the United Nations approved the general principles which recognize the status of indigenous peoples in 1992, but in the preparatory meetings of the Conference Rio +10 these principles are not taken into consideration and even worse, are being abandoned. In official documents the role of indigenous peoples is beginning to be eliminated or minimized, and they are considered as one of many actors, in spite of them being the main direct actor.

In WRM bulletin 46 we mentioned the impacts of mining and other deforestation agents in Panama, but the establishment of protected areas which imply the eviction of the indigenous peoples who inhabit them is surely not the best way to ensure conservation. While the government of Panama says, on the one hand, that it promotes the conservation and protection of the remaining forests, on the other hand, it wants to promote the mining activity within the national territory, and even inside the protected areas. Almost all indigenous territories are included in the requests for mining exploration permits, even though the mining activity is against the religious and spiritual principles of the indigenous peoples.

Although the Panamanian law establishes that all forest concession permits must have received the previous consent of the indigenous peoples living where the forest exploitation is to be made, the National Environmental Authority does not always comply with this requirement and most often forest concessions are not monitored.

It is thus necessary to adopt measures for the recognition of traditional rights of the indigenous peoples to their territories, as a crucial aspect of the sustainable use of forests and the equitable sharing of benefits. If these forests still exist (when so many others have been destroyed) it is precisely thanks to (and not in spite of) the presence of indigenous peoples. It is time for us all to admit it and ensure their rights once and for all.

top 

NORTH AMERICA

- Mexico: The Puebla Panama Plan threathens Los Chimalapas tropical forest

The Zoque forest stretches over the boundaries of the three states of greatest biodiversity in Mexico: Oaxaca, Veracruz and Chiapas. It is the most compact and best conserved continuous forest of North America, with a million hectares that include pine, holm oak and pine-holm oak forests, cloud or mesophile forests, and high, medium and low tropical forests.

Los Chimalapas is the Oaxacan section of the Zoque forest, and its high degree of conservation has been possible thanks to the respectful care of the Zoque indigenous people of Oaxaca. Los Chimalapas communicates with El Ocote in Chiapas and Uxpanapa in Veracruz, through biological corridors.

Hydroelectric dams, highways and tree plantations were unsuccesful megaprojects designed for Los Chimalapas during the Administrations of Presidents José López Portillo, Miguel de la Madrid and Carlos Salinas. During the government of Ernesto Zedillo, there was a more misleading proposal: to declare Los Chimalapas a biosphere reserve, but this project could not be implemented due to its rejection by the local people.

The agents of globalization and nature mercantilization can see hidden wealth in the rainforest: stones and sand for southeastern highways, non-metal minerals for the microelectronics industry, water for the dams of Chiapas, labour for the maquiladoras in the southeast. Transport companies and hotels want tourism. Biotechnology demands biodiversity, and Los Chimalapas is considered a unique genetic bank. The Army will in turn facilitate the control of natural reserves and will ensure private investment.

The local people of Zoque make their voices heard from the highest mountains of the Tehuantepec Isthmus: "We need to organize ourselves as peoples, to implement the agrarian law and to declare the invaded zones as peasant ecological reserves, and to restore the mountain forests that burned in 1998. This is our mountain, our house. Imagine you are told how to take care of your house which is then taken away from you. Solve the agricultural conflicts and let us on our own; we would then be able to improve rainforest care."

Far from solving the conflicts, the federal government intends to control all the activities carried out in Los Chimalapas. For that purpose, one of its proposals is the biosphere reserve, whereby peasants are separated from their ancestral land. The new strategy of the government to decree the reserve is to use the Communal Statutes, which are also rejected by the local people because they were not fully involved in their elaboration.

Being Los Chimalapas a strategic place for the industrial and biological corridors of the Puebla Panama Plan (PPP), the megaprojects, industrial and biological corridors and the growth of the cities, planned for the Isthmus puts a direct threat to the natural reserves of Los Chimalapas. An industrial corridor to the west of the Zoque forest around the transisthmic highway; the opening of the Isthmus to global merchandise circulation; maquiladoras; increased oil and petrochemical exploitation in Salina Cruz, Minatitlán and Coatzacoalcos. Growth of the main cities of the states composing the Tehuantepec Isthmus: Oaxaca, Veracruz, Chiapas and Tabasco, together with parallel processes in the Yucatan Peninsula and Central America.

In order to support this industrial and urban development plan, the Puebla Panama Plan proposes rural industrialization through tree plantations, cattle corridors, extensive coffee plantations and exploitation of the biogenetic resources of medicinal plants and native crops such as bean, maize and chili, by creating transgenic seeds.

Disguised under the discourse of sustainability, a series of biological corridors stretch from Central America to Mexico, reaching their maximum expansion in Chiapas, where they cross the tourism corridors of the Maya Route, and later continue through Veracruz and Oaxaca to the North, crossing the Zoque forest.

The corridors are devised to control access to the natural resources and territories of indigenous peoples, install bioprospection centres in zones with high biological diversity and create tourism corridors. The Puebla Panama Plan starts this year 2002. All past megaprojects are kept in the current agenda, as well as many others which have not yet been made public. Official reports are more chilling than silence.

One question still remains: where is the social agenda of the Puebla Panama Plan? Does it include a solution for the old agrarian conflicts? In reality, it appears that more conflicts will arise by expelling the people from those areas through which industrial corridors, superhighways and biological corridors will run.

The territorial rights of indigenous peoples, the collective control of natural resources and community self-management are still standing alternatives for Los Chimalapas.

top 

SOUTH AMERICA

- Brazil: Indigenous peoples restart their struggle against dams on the Xingu river

Since their arrival in the Amazon, "white men" have had an ever-increasing impact on that region. However, it was not until World War 2 that deforestation became a large-scale process. Today, some 80% of the Amazon forest is still standing, but estimations are that its destruction will be completed in the next decades if nothing is done to stop it. The hope that "something" could be done was closer than ever in 1989, when the first meeting of indigenous peoples was held in Altamira.

The image of an indigenous Kayapo woman threatening the president of Eletronorte with her knife travelled throughout the world. Indigenous leader Paulo Payakan went to the offices of the World Bank in Washington to speak againt the financing of the hydroelectric dam of Kararao, because it would destroy nature and violate the rights of the native inhabitants of the region. The result was that Eletronorte had to put aside its dam building plans on the Xingu river. This victory was to a large extent possible through the broad support received by the indigenous peoples from politicians, scientists, artists, NGOs, and entrepreneurs from the so-called "green industries."

Thirteen years later, and taking advantage of an energy crisis, Eletronorte has returned with its plan of building a hydro-plant in Kararao. They now call it "Belo Monte", in an attempt to erase the history of struggles against it. Paulo Payacan, first condemned by the influential magazine "Veja", and only later -- in a controversial trial-- by the courts of justice, is now impeded to circulate outside the indigenous territories. Differently from what happened in 1989, the famous singer Sting was not present at the new Altamira meeting. The meeting was also ignored by the mainstream media, by the cosmetics multinationals, and by the NGOs that developed during the past years to a large extent as a result of their relationship with the indigenous peoples.

The struggle against the Xingu dams is not lost. Leaders of the movement have already been killed, the mass media has been corrupted, and hydro-plants have been privatized even before having been built. But if in 1989, the indigenous people who participated numbered 600, at this second meeting at Altamira there were over 5000 people --including indigenous representatives and rural workers. The movement will need to greatly increase in the coming months. Humanity, impacted with the image of the global warming of the planet, watching how a 50 billion tonne block of ice comes off the Antartica, may finally become aware of the impending disaster of the Amazon forest going up in flames. There is still hope that we will not become witnesses or accomplices of the death of Xingu river.

top 

- Brazil: The least publicised yet most endangered Atlantic Forest

It is worth noting that many people are not aware of the great diversity of ecosystems of the South American continent. Its great longitude and altitude variation, ranging from sea level to over 7000 metres, as well as its great variety of climates, enables the presence of diverse and different ecosystems, including the largest tropical rainforest (the Amazon Rainforest) and the planet's driest desert (Atacama desert).

This variety of ecosystems explains the generalised ignorance of what happens with the region's natural environment, with the exception of the Amazon rainforest. We would hence like to draw attention to the Atlantic Forest, whose very existence is highly threatened, and which is one of the richest in biodiversity.

The Atlantic Forest (Mata Atlantica) originally stretched all over the Brazilian coast, entering the continent and advancing into Argentina and Paraguay. Given its distribution along 23 degrees latitude south, and its diverse geography and climate, this biome is composed of different types of forests, including three forest types, as well as mangrove forests and xeromorphic coastal dune forests called the "Restinga".

In Brazil there is a strong movement for the protection and recovery of the Atlantic Forest: the Mata Atlántica NGO Network, which gathers more than 160 groups that actively work to influence public policies that affect this biome. Thanks to its work and with the support of the National Council of the Mata Atlantica Biosphere Reserve, a specific programme was created in 2001 for the recovery of the Atlantic Forest, as a sub-programme under the Pilot Programme for the Protection of Brazilian Tropical Rainforests.

In the 15th century, at the moment of the "discovery" of South America and Brazil, the Atlantic Forest covered a very large extension. The name Brazil comes from a tree known as "Palo Brasil". Brazil had nearly 15% of its territory covered by this forest (1.036 thousand square kilometres); today, only around 8% of that original cover remains standing. Striking as it may appear, the Atlantic Forest is much better preserved in Argentina (covering 3.500 sq.km) and Paraguay (10.000 sq.km), where this forest occupied a much smaller area than in Brazil. One of the causes of deforestation in Brazil has been the process of urbanization. At present, more than 100 million people live in the area which was originally occupied by the Atlantic Forest. The clearance of forest areas for agriculture was --and still is-- another cause of deforestation.

Despite being in the most densely populated region of the country, the Atlantic Forest ecosystem is poorly known and has been subject to little study: not until 1990 was the black-faced lion monkey identified. By the end of the 90’s some studies revealed the existence of areas with up to 454 species of trees per hectare in a region in the South of Bahia (Brazilian Northeastern Region), which indicates that the Atlantic Forest holds the highest biodiversity of the planet. According to research carried out by Conservation International, the Atlantic Forest is among the 25 "hot spots" of the planet.

While the proximity of the Atlantic Forest to the big cities had once been one of the causes of its degradation, now it is also being a useful element for its preservation. Today, Brazilian people are increasingly aware of the importance of preserving this ecosystem, which, among other environmental services, is responsible for the supply of water for millions of people. At present, the forest is a source of income for many communities through the recovery and sustainable management of tropical plants (bromeliads and orchids) and fruits.

In Brazil, with the active participation of NGOs, local governments and the community, steps are being taken to revert this process of degradation. Stricter legislation, control and monitoring measures, as well as sensitivization programmes, are already enabling the natural recovery of this forest, through the abandonment of agricultural fields established in inappropriate areas such as those bordering rivers and on the slopes of hills. It is to be expected that in a near future, the Atlantic Forest be treated and understood as one whole ecosystem in the three countries where it exists: Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay. Only through integrated measures adopted by all parties, will it be possible to recover all the exhuberance of this forest and the benefits it provides for these countries and the planet.

top 

- Chile: Invasion of Mapuche territory by tree plantation companies

The systematic loss of Mapuche territory, that covered some 11 million hectares on the Chilean side (not including the historic territory of the Mapuche nation that stretched over an important part of the Argentinean side), as a result of the military invasion by the Chilean State that began in 1883, represents the starting point of the violent plundering of the Mapuche lands, with the loss of nearly 95% of their total territory.

Nearly a century later, in 1973, the domains were even smaller. The situation worsened during the military dictatorship of Pinochet, when the territory was reduced even further, mostly due to its transfer to individuals and to forestry companies.

This situation was consolidated during the military dictatorship, from 1975 until now, when the forestry activity is inserted in an economic model that overexploits the historic Mapuche territory. The water-vegetation network has been severely affected and there is a systematic increase of the damage caused by pine and eucalyptus plantations: progressive soil erosion, hydric systems alteration and increased pollution, which forces the migration of Mapuche rural communities.

The advance of the monoculture tree plantation invasion in the 8th, 9th y 10th Regions, where the Mapuche population largely exceeds 337.000 inhabitants (1992 Census: according to this census, the total Mapuche population in Chile comprises 928.060 people), represents the Mapuche territorial ethnocide. The lack of land, the cultural and environmental destruction of the ecosystems of the communities surrounding the plantations, makes many people stand against them in self-defense. However, the economic power of the companies, promoted and protected by the Chilean State, represses all Mapuche mobilizations through the courts, the police and third-party actions.

Hundreds of people arrested, accused and sentenced; scores of people wounded and thousands evicted is the result and balance of the numerous Mapuche mobilizations to recover their usurped territories and to stop the green cancer of forestry companies' plantations. However, forestry companies, according to their own data, already occupied an area of 2.118.840 hectares at country level by 1996; and 1.495.760 hectares of historic Mapuche territory (in the 8th, 9th and 10th Regions).

Important Mapuche leaders and territorial authorities like Víctor Ancalaf, Francisco Llanca, Ariel Tori, Gastón Ailla, from Collipulli; Marcelo Catrillanca from Ercilla; Aniceto Norin and Pascual Pichún from Traiguén, among many others, have been victims of the repression of the state and of the manipulation of Chilean forestry companies and powerful individuals, and are currently facing lawsuits and imprisonment.

At present, the territorial invasion is greatly increasing, as well as the systematic ethnocide, under the protection, complicity and promotion of the Chilean State, that under the configuration of a neocolonialist ideology has promoted a commercial system with unicist and genocidal cultural values, whose results are even more atrocious than those of physical extermination. This system has resulted in environmental destruction, such as the loss of water resources --due to their depletion by monoculture tree plantations-- land and water pollution produced by an irrational use of chemicals such as fungicides, pesticides and herbicides, and degradation of vegetal cover and soil erosion due to large-scale clearing for industrial purposes.

Today, it is the State itself and these Chilean power groups who have stigmatized the Mapuche situation as a conflict, labeling it as a problem, a hindrance for development and progress. However, the communities are the ones that raise their voices to propose a new way of relationship and progress, to stop the depredation of capitalism in favour of a more equitable and balanced human society. The Mapuche people can make a great contribution to the consumerist and self-destructive Western society, and it is precisely the cultural, philosophical and cosmic vision of the Mapuche what appears as a sign of hope, not only for Chilean occidentalism, but also for humankind as a whole.

The invasion of the Mapuche historic territory by monoculture tree plantations is the consolidation of ethnocide and therefore, an implicit plundering of territorialities.

The responsibility for this situation is not to be found only in Chile, given that there are a number of countries that share the blame through the import of this wood. Belgium, The Netherlands and the United Kingdom, are the main buyers in Europe; USA in North America and Japan in Asia, are all buyers which have not in the least cared for the violation of the Mapuche communities’ human rights. Undoubtedly they are also responsible for the situation.

By: Alfredo Seguel, Agrupación de jóvenes técnicos y profesionales Konapewman, "Impactos ambientales en el territorio mapuche y la consolidación etnocida y ecocida de la política de estado", e-mail: seguel@chile.com 

top 

- Colombia: Community stops a mining license in forest reserve

In the Planalto forest reserve in Colombia, the 180 species of diurnal butterflies found until today, can go on flying, the ten genuses of Melolonthidae beetle will go on scratching the soil, and also the ants that live there and form part of all the subfamilies in the neotropics will continue their work. The flight of the 160 different species of birds, 9% of the total species identified in Colombia, will continue uninterrupted. All this will be possible thanks to the action of the people living in the reserve area and those who supported their struggle.

The Planalto reserve spreads over 100 hectares, in one of the ends of the city of Manizales; it comprises the biggest stretch of forest located in the pre-montane and very humid tropical life zones of the municipality. A high percentage of the plants that grow in the area cannot be found in other forest stretches, and with regards to bird species, less than 55% are in other forest areas within the same life zone, and some of them, such as the white-tipped sicklebill, seem to be restricted to this forest within the municipality.

For decades, the coffee region of Colombia, where the Planalto reserve is located, has been subject to severe transformations of its mountain ecosystems, mainly to prepare land for coffee monoculture, although there is now a trend towards crop diversification and the recovery of traditional forms of production --such as under-shade coffee-- due to the crisis of the agricultural sector, something which is to be expected when the economy of a region depends solely on one product. This process has produced the disappearance of most of the native forests on the stretch between 1,000 and 2,000 metres above sea level, a fact that has been worsened by the dynamics of colonization and concentration of population in the area (near 70% of the Colombian people live in the Andean region).

On the other hand, the tropical Andes have been proposed as one of the 15 "hotspots" or priority areas for conservation at world level, home to 30%-40% of the biological diversity of the earth.

But --as usual-- neither all the above reasons, nor the declaration of the reserve as "area of environmental interest" in the land plan of the municipality hindered the company INGEOCOM Ltda to take the first steps to obtain a mining license within the reserve.

On June 16, 2000 the company asked for the permits needed for the exploitation of amphibolitic rock in the Planalto in a 12-hectare quarry, in which it projected to obtain a minimum annual production of 10 thousand cubic metres.

Voices of protest rose at once, and the community expressed its strong rejection regarding the possibility of having a mine within the reserve. Initially it was the Centro de Investigaciones de Café (Coffee Research Centre), that owns the land, who defended the conservation of the area, arguing that it was an area dedicated to research and protection of biodiversity. The members of the community in general, as well as students and academics adhered to the protest. Nevertheless, a year later the project already had the exploitation license granted by the Ministry of Mines and Energy, and the only requirement pending to start mining operations was the environmental license; such license was applied for on June 19, 2001 to CORPOCALDAS, the environmental authority of the municipality.

On August 22, the company suffered its first setback: Corpocaldas recommended not to continue with the project because it was not environmentally feasible, and the representative of the company asked Corpocaldas to reconsider its decision. The reserve defenders intensified their struggle, and the situation came to the attention of many people who sent messages to Corpocaldas, even from abroad, requesting the refusal of the license. Conservation-linked people from the research centre in which the reserve is located produced a document which clearly shows the importance of the preservation of the reserve for the city and for the region, in terms of conservation, education and research.

As a result of the pressure, the environmental authority was forced to call to a public audience in December in order to listen to both parties; this audience finally became one of the milestones of the environmental struggle in the region, both due to its scope and for the massive attendance of all community sectors, which wanted to show their commitment and contribute to the achievement of a collective aim which was also theirs.

Finally, the victory was for the friends of biodiversity, which at last heard from Corpocaldas the answer they hoped for: "the license for the mining exploitation in the Planalto is not granted", a decision ratified by Resolution No. 0193 on February 5, 2002.

This is not only the success of life prevailing over particular interests, but also an important step towards the consolidation of aims which are of interest for the community as a whole, that is now realizing the importance and power of collective action, and the significance of asserting its rights and beliefs. This success is underscored by the fact that the decision was made by a corporation with a well-known tradition of political tampering, that nevertheless was not able to prevail over the peoples' power.

By: Diego Alejandro Cardona C., Red Juvenil Ambiental Nacional (REDJUAN), Colombia, e-mail: decalle@starmedia.com 

top 

- Ecuador: When people said NO to mining

Mining is one of the direct causes of deforestation. In spite of that, not only has this industry continued with its activities, but in the last years it has also managed to introduce changes in national and international legislation and policies, which favour the consortiums of the sector. This has been done to the detriment of the legislation that protects indigenous peoples and the environment.

Furthermore, the powerful interests of the mining industry are not lonely players. They count on the pressure of multilateral institutions, such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which, within the framework of the so-called "development" projects, impose structural adjustment programmes that force governments to free the flow of capital in order to facilitate mining expansion.

In Ecuador, however, the people of a small village have stood up for their rights. In the south of the Ecuadorian Amazon, in the Yanzatza canton, province of Zamora Chinchipe, at the confluence of the rivers Zamora and Nangaritza, is located Los Encuentros, capital of a parish of the same name. Its dwellers, pushed by forest destruction, migrated from other systems in search of better lands.

Recently arrived to the region, they did not know the local ecosystem, and consequently they acted inadequately. Now they are suffering the consequences of their bad management, but they have also reflected in order to take the necessary steps to correct the situation, and prevent their children from repeating their fate and being forced to migrate.

But at the same time that they have increased their environmental awareness and began to make plans and decisions about the environmental future of their area, the Minister of Energy and Mines granted a concession for alluvial mining of 2,500 hectares on the banks of the rivers Zamora and Nangaritza. Riverside communities, to whom the river is a vital element for their livelihood --source of food, water supply both for daily use and irrigation of their food-crops-- know that mining will inevitably mean pollution, and that this threatens their food sovereignty.

The local people of Los Encuentros, acting by decision of well attended Parish Meetings, decided to take the matter to court. There they expressed their claims and proved that the concessionaire had violated several constitutional rules by not carrying out the previous consultation with the community and not submitting the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and the Environmental Management Plan in due time for their discussion.

The authorities considered their request. The Under Secretary of Energy and Mines asked them for a month term so that the EIA could be submitted and discussed by the assembly, and accepted to abide by their decision. They received the voluminous document only two days before the limit date; however, they maintained their decision of rejecting the mining concession, in order to ensure a worthy future for their children. Even though this decision was accepted by the National Director of Mines who attended the meeting, and registered in a formal record, whereby a month term was granted to the firm to abandon the region, fifteen days later, the leaders who had signed the record were notified of an administrative appeal filed by the concessionaire and accepted by the relevant authority. The notification also stated that local leaders would have to appear in court for an administrative and technical inspection, accusing them of terrorism and vandalism.

Armed with patience, local villagers massively attended the inspection and demanded that many evident insecure elements were registered in the report, as well as the lack of environmental policies in the mining camp, where solid and liquid wastes were directly dumped into the river. Once again they waited for the date established for the company to leave the place, but, a few days later, instead of leaving, the concessionaire began to work with military support. The villagers of Los Encuentros said: this is enough. They went to the bank of the river Zamora with their tools (shovels, pickaxes, machetes) and cut the trees that supported a barge built for camp and mining exploitation, forcing the concessionaire to stop the works. They gave the company 12 hours to leave the place. The police and the military tried to repress villagers, but they were far too many. Finally the company abandoned the area on December 18, 2001.

For the people of Los Encuentros, that day has become part of their best history, because they bravely defended their right to live in a healthy environment. They expelled a polluting activity they did not want, betting on other that do not degrade the environment. They knew that their true wealth lies in biological and cultural wealth. ¿Does the government know this?

Article based on information compiled by Yolanda Reyes, Fundación Vientos de Vida, e-mail: fv_vida@hotmail.com 

top 

OCEANIA

- Aotearoa/New Zealand: Meeting the CBD obligations and the need for a definition of what is not a forest

In all of the debate over what is (or is not) a forest, the issue of an individual country’s commitment to the Convention on Biological diversity (CBD) has been overlooked by many. We need to remember that in signing and ratifying their commitment to the CBD, countries commit to increasing their forest cover as a measure of protecting biodiversity. The Global Forest Coalition produced a report on several countries' commitment to the CBD which was presented at the sixth Conference of the Parties in The Hague. This report made several countries look very good, in particular, developed nations. The Netherlands, the United Kingdom and New Zealand especially looked very good. While this article freely admits that these countries have made significant contributions to the international environmental debate and the protection of biodiversity, they are a long way from perfect and this needs to be borne in mind when analyzing their contribution.

Aotearoa (New Zealand), for example has been very active in several fora in pushing for the adoption of plantations as a mechanism for absorbing carbon emissions. Leaving aside the scientific debate over whether the theory of sinks is good, bad or indifferent science, we need to ask what else would the adoption of sinks impact on in terms of international agreements signed (and ratified). Aotearoa has undertaken, as part of its commitment to the CBD to increase its forest cover, yet an analysis of the state of New Zealand’s forests will show you that the level of indigenous forests (overall) has been relatively stable for more than 30 years. How then can the country meet its commitment to the CBD? Well, a quick look at the Ministry of the Environment’s webpage (with figures courtesy of the Ministry of statistics) shows one possible answer.

Approximately 23% of the total landmass is in Indigenous forest cover, not all of it old growth by any stretch of the imagination, way short of New Zealand’s commitment to the CBD. 6.6% of total land mass is in monocultural production plantation (90% of which is Pinus radiata). This is an old and acknowledged debate, which New Zealand has never tried to hide. Successive governments of all persuasions have been adamant that the country’s timber production areas constitute forests. However, the combination of these two figures still leaves the country short of its commitment to the CBD. Yet, the web page shows that New Zealand’s forest cover is 40%, past its CBD target. A further study of the figures shows that 10.2% of the country’s land mass is in scrubland and that this has now been included under forest cover, something that had not happened at the time of the Climate conference in The Hague.

I am a very proud New Zealander and a supporter of the current government, and I do not mean to imply that there is any deliberate malice in this shifting of the figures. Any government has a duty to not only protect the environment but also to ensure a healthy economy to provide the social benefits the people demand. To me, this fudging of the figures on New Zealand’s forest cover is indicative of the debate over a definition of what exactly a forest is (or is not).

If a universally accepted definition included any of the following,

1) A forest is Indigenous by definition

2) A forest requires a mix of species

3) A forest requires some level of mature tree percentage and canopy,

then New Zealand would have 23% (or less) forest cover and would be far short of its commitment to the CBD.

It is my belief that we need an internationally agreed definition of a forest that includes, as a minimum, the above three items. If this means that some countries will therefore require more time to meet their commitments to the CBD, then that is a reality we will all have to live with. At least the figures we will be discussing will be more accurate and reflective of forest biodiversity. In order to achieve commitments to conservation we are going to have to address issues of demand and over consumption, biodiversity erosion through invasive and introduced species. Any incentive system offered by governments must be for biodiversity conservation as a primary focus and we must avoid the overuse of perverse incentives because of their potential for negative impact on biodiversity.

By: Sandy Gauntlett, e-mail: sandygauntlett@hotmail.com 

top 

- Papua New Guinea: Diminishing forests, increasing suffering

Papua New Guinea, widely recognised as a country with a great diversity of forests, is now facing the depletion of its forest resources. An Independent Forestry Review identified that 7 million hectares of forests have been allocated for large-scale commercial logging.

The Islands region has provided high stocking densities and easy access to logging companies, which led to an increase in concessions that quadrupled between 1982 and 1991 and consequently a rapid depletion of the island resources. The companies shifted then to mainland, where they have been acquiring ever-larger concessions in order to remain profitable.

In the mid 1990’s, log export levels reached a peak --about 3 million cubic metres per year--, to decline steadily thereafter. This decline has been a consequence of the exploitation of forest areas with lower stocking densities because the most valuable forests have already been exhausted.

These are just numbers and equations which record cutting cycles and profit rates deprived of the whole vital life involved in a forest. For companies, it’s just a problem of (economically) unsustainable consumption of logs, perhaps, but for the people of Papua New Guinea, it means environmental destruction which implies that they have to search further and longer for food and medicines --with animal and bird populations dispersed, fruit and nut trees destroyed, medicinal plants and vines crushed-- and finding their water polluted by soil erosion and their traditional building materials bulldozed.

Forests suffer, nature suffers, and people suffer the social and cultural costs that come with the so called forestry "development’, which only serves a handful of corporations to ripe huge benefits. A bad ratio, indeed.

top 

GENERAL

- Independent review of CBD forest-related commitments

A coalition of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and Indigenous Peoples’ Organizations (IPOs) commissioned an independent review of the status of implementation, in 21 countries, of the Convention of Biological Diversity commitments related to forests, and came up with a number of recommendations for action.

The global report --presented in The Hague at CBD COP6-- provides a synthesis of the 21 country reports, reflecting the information provided by the relevant Ministries to a questionnaire and comments on that information by civil society participants in the review. The countries analysed in the report are: Australia, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Czech Republic, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Malaysia, the Netherlands, New Zealand/Aotearoa, Papua New Guinea, Russia, South Africa, Suriname, Uganda, United Kingdom, and Uruguay.

The main finding is that very little has been achieved regarding implementation of commitments, after 10 years of negotiations at the CBD. A major conclusion that stands out almost as a rule is the lack of integration between National Biodiversity Strategies/Action Plans and National Forest Programmes --the latter putting a strong emphasis on the economic value of forests-- as well as the lack of involvement of indigenous peoples and local communities in national biodiversity processes.