• Cameroon: Forest policy must respect "Pygmy" forest peoples' rights
• Congo, DR: The Inga hydropower project, a betrayal of social promises
• Kenya: Ogiek forest people fight for their rights
• South Africa: Timberrr.! As the plantations go on growing, more South Africans are crying out a warning

- Cameroon: Forest policy must respect "Pygmy" forest peoples' rights

With a population generally estimated to number about 100,000 persons in Cameroon, "pygmies" constitute the best known and the most vulnerable of Africa’s forest peoples. Their lifestyle is closely linked to the forest, from which they obtain their food (meat, fruits, honey, roots, etc.) and the traditional medicinal products for which they are known to be great experts. The forest is their natural habitat in which they continue, for the most part, to be nomadic.

Cameroon’s 1993 Forestry Policy and the 1994 Forestry Law and its implementation instruments have implied a negation of the customary rights of natives.

Cameroon has a system of double legal standards, with a statute law of colonial origin, presented as “modern”, which coexists with a multitude of unwritten laws referred to as “customary”, of a pre-colonial origin. By virtue of the implementation of the notion of “no man’s land”, which was unknown in the customary laws of forest-dwelling people, the State claimed all the land on which individuals were incapable of showing proof of ownership in accordance with modern law (i.e. land titles).

The granting of concessions is the preserve of the forestry administration, and the procedure ignores all the marginal communities. The determination of surface areas open to exploitation takes into consideration neither the hunting areas nor the migration zones of “pygmies”. Only economic profitability criteria are considered when determining production forests, thus ignoring any social consideration.

Industrial-scale timber exploitation has a negative effect on the “pygmy” populations, both directly through the destruction of forest resources on which they rely, and indirectly by creating access to the forest for poachers who may carry out game collection on a massive scale. By so doing, they contribute to growing scarcity of wildlife resources, which directly impact on the diet and therefore quality of life of "pygmies". Many species of high commercial value as timber, such as moabi and bubinga, also have an economic and cultural importance to “pygmy” communities. Felling of such species by logging companies contributes in altering the foundations of “pygmy” life, and contributes to the destruction of their culture.

Since the enactment of the forestry law on 20th January 1994, village communities living on or around State land have had the right to obtain community forests. As defined in the law, a community forest is a piece of State forest land, free from any forest exploitation license, and having a surface area of at most 5,000 hectares, on which the State retains ownership of the land, but entrusts the management of the forest resources to the village community concerned for 25 years, on a renewable basis.

Under the existing provisions, “pygmy” communities would find it very difficult to obtain a community forest. One of the prerequisites for obtaining a community forest is the legalisation of an institution representing "the community". Generally, “pygmy” communities do not have the level of formal education or social organisation needed to enable them to fulfil this requirement.

The community forest may be designated only in areas where the community enjoys customary land rights. Generally, “pygmies” who have been re-settled along forest roads and tracks do not enjoy any customary land rights, as such rights are reserved to the Bantus who "host" them. The law does not provide for the designation of community forests in the "Permanent Forest", where pygmies mostly enjoy "customary rights".

The maximum surface area of community forests and community hunting areas (5,000 hectares) is not adapted to “pygmies”, whose hunting and gathering way of life generally extends over a much greater surface area.

“Pygmy” communities are an important and integral part of the cultural and human heritage of the Congo Basin. In Cameroon, “pygmy” customary rights concerning the management of space and resources are among those that have been sacrificed in the name of modernism, through the imposition of modern over customary law. The frailty of “pygmy” communities' existence, compounded by their strong dependence on an intact forest ecosystem, should have justified special attention by the law in their favour.

Urgent and vigorous measures need to be taken in order to ensure that forest exploitation and conservation policies are not detrimental to the pygmies of the Congo basin:

1. There is a need for recognition within Cameroon’s forest zoning plan of “pygmies’” customary land rights, including in concessions and protected areas. In protected areas, “pygmy” communities should be involved in law enforcement and other monitoring operations, in collaboration with the administration;

2. The logging of species with high cultural, therapeutic or nutritional value for forest dependent peoples should be prohibited;

3. The government should increase sanctions against illegal loggers;

4. The regulations concerning community forestry should be adapted to take account of the particular context of “pygmy” communities;

5. Definitions of acceptable user rights should be adapted to encompass pygmy modes of production, in order to enable them earn their living legally through the sale of traditionally gathered products in the forest.

Excerpted from: “Forest Management Transparency, Governance and the Law. Case studies from the Congo Basin”, edited by Centre for Environment and Development (CED), Cameroon; Rainforest Foundation, UK; and Forests Monitor, UK; October 2003, at http://www.africa-environment.org/gendoc/Case_studies.pdf

---

top

- Congo, DR: The Inga hydropower project, a betrayal of social promises

In a continent still ravaged by more than 20 armed conflicts backed by foreign interests and financed through pillage of the continent’s natural resources --oil, diamonds, gold, timber, copper, cobalt and coltan--, the New Partnership for Africa’s Development, NEPAD, comes as a question mark for some. For others it is a "Marshall Plan" for Africa, expressing the imposition of capitalist neoliberalism: privatization, trade liberalization, export-led (de)-industrialization, structural adjustment programmes, encouraging Africans to pay unpayable debts, conservative fiscal and monetary policies and, indeed, the entire menu of the international financial institutions.

At the beginning of June 2003, in the presence of Presidents Thabo Mbeki (South Africa), Abdoulaye Wade (Senegal), Olusegun Obasanjo (Nigeria), Abdellaziz Bouteflika (Algeria) and Hosni Moubarak (Egypt), the world’s eight most industrialized countries (G-8) renewed their support for the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD).

Within that framework, the Inga Dam in the Democratic Republic of Congo has been portrayed as a key for NEPAD‘s future success. Tender bids for the rehabilitation of the Inga I (350 MW) and Inga II (1,424 MW) dams will take place in mid-2004, with a total cost estimated at $500 million. Most of the money --$400 million-- will come from the World Bank, which has been highly active on Congo's electricity front. The Congolese authorities had earmarked $80 million for the first phase of the Inga dam rehabilitation program. Several groups are struggling to get a good position for the Inga contract, among which South Africa's Eskom and Germany's Siemens.

Inga’s next stage, Inga III (between 1,700 and 3,500 MW with an estimated cost of US $4 billion) and the “Great Inga Final Stage” (39,000 MW), are also being piloted by the World Bank, plus the EDF Group (France), and Lahmeyer(Germany).

The building of a 3,500 megawatt Inga III hydropower station will be carried out by five Southern African Development Community (SADC) members to supply the Westcor Power Project --formed by South Africa's Eskom, the Botswana Power Corporation, Angola's Empresa Nacional de Electricidade (ENE), NamPower of Namibia and Societe Nationale d'Electricite (SNEL) of the Democratic Republic of Congo.

The Great Inga, at Inga Falls on the River Congo, where the river drops 100 metres, has a potential output of some 39,000 megawatts with an estimated cost of US$ 6 billion. That's three times as much as any existing hydroelectric dam and more than twice that of China's controversial Three Gorges scheme. Supporters would say that because the river runs strongly all year, no large dams will be needed. Even though the power may be generated through "run-of-river" works at Inga Falls, one big unknown is the effect on fisheries and river ecology. Even run-of-river plants can eliminate fish migrations, and they can badly damage silt flows, which are crucial to river ecology.

The plan to build the world's largest hydroelectric project on the Congo river which will have the capacity of supplying the current electricity demands of the entire continent is challenged by groups from the civil society. They allege that the social promises made at the World Summit in Johannesburg have been betrayed.

Connecting Inga to a continent-wide electricity grid for main population centres would cost more than $10 billion. But power grids will not reach the hundreds of millions of Africa's rural poor. Besides, most African economies are based on subsistence and commercial activities involving small and micro enterprises with structural features that are often overlooked by policy makers.

The Inga project departs from the goal of small-scale sustainable energy projects discussed at the World Summit, where the talk was of bringing electricity to rural people through local wind and solar power projects. Megaprojects like this more than often imply social, economic and environmental disruption of people’s livelihoods, lands and life.

Article based on information from: “Bidding Round for Inga in 2004”,November 12, 2003; New Plant to Bring Regional Power On Stream, November 14, 2003, UN Integrated Regional Information Networks , sent by Ryan Hoover, e-mail: ryan@irn.org , Africa Program, International Rivers Network, http://www.irn.org ; “Giant Congo hydroelectric project is a 'betrayal'”, by Fred Pearce, New Scientist, http://www.odiousdebts.org/odiousdebts/index.cfm?DSP=content&ContentID=5707 ; “Impact potential of NEPAD, the new partnership for Africa’s development, Ako Amadi, http://www.cbnrm.uwc.ac.za/paplrr/docs/Nairobi%20PAPLRR%20NEPAD%20Paper%20-%20Ako.pdf ; “Africa: `Nepad? No thanks', say African activists”,
Patrick Bond , http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2002/497/497p14.htm ; and contributions from Fred Pearce, e-mail: PEARCEFRED@compuserve.com

---

top

- Kenya: Ogiek forest people fight for their rights

While Kenyans celebrate their forty years of independence, the Ogiek remember the forty years of dispossession and institutional marginalisation. They have suffered systematic oppression, suppression and brutality through a policy of assimilation leading to extinction.

The over 290,000 hectares Mau forest complex represents the largest remaining continuous block of mountain indigenous forest in East Africa. The Ogiek people have occupied this forest from time immemorial and are among the only remaining forest dwelling communities in Kenya. They number about 15,000 people, live in groups and clans, speak the Ogiek language, practice selective hunting and perform traditional agriculture within the system of land tenure common to the forest dwelling communities (tree tenure, animal tenure and land tenure). The Ogiek hold their land collectively while individual community members and families enjoy subsidiary rights of use and occupancy. These traditional lands are neither demarcated nor otherwise specifically recognized by the Kenyan laws.

The long history of resistance and struggle of the Ogiek has sustained their unity, identity and cultural distinction. On the contrary, the excision of large chunks of land --the Mau forest provide 70-80% of the total forest area that is intended for excision-- by the Moi regime and the settlement of squatters have threatened their very existence as a distinct people more than ever before. By threatening sacred sites and the habitat within which the community engage in hunting, gathering and other pastoral activities and farming, the logging concessions and the temporarily stopped settlement scheme, not only threaten the integral aspects of the Ogiek community’s existence, continuity and culture but it also seeks to kill community's hope of passing on their identity and land to its children.

The Ogiek have helped Kenyans by voicing the official injustices meted against them and their environment by the former regime. Now, that the new National Rainbow Coalition (NARC) Government will formulate a new forest policy, co-ownership and management of their natural resources is a must. Thus, they call upon the government to put in place mechanisms that will see the Indigenous minority forest dwellers enjoying their natural habitats and not to be punished as a results of government policies. These are:

1) Access to resources, development and benefits sharing from their territory as that enjoyed by farmers, pastoralists and fishermen.

2) Official recognition of their lands and protection from activities which are, in environmental terms, unacceptable or actually unsuitable.

3) Put in place criteria and indicators for sustainable forest development that meets the spiritual, cultural and social well-being of the Ogiek and their brothers the Sengwer, Yiaku, Morti, IIK, Chepkitale etc, all who are forest dependant people.

4) Foster the development of sustainable development strategies by the forest dwellers at the National and Local levels.

5) Accept their own concept of protected areas and conservation, based upon their customary laws, traditional knowledge and profound connection with their lands, territories and resources.

6) The settlement scheme sanctioned by the office of the President invaded their private lives, thus blanketing their rights would be inconsistent with the Ogiek demands.

The Ogiek call upon the Presidential Commission of illegal and irregular allocation of public lands to recommend for the revocation and nullification of the forest excision in question.

Article based on information from: “Mau Forest Complex on the spotlight. Kenyan’s must be told the truth”, Ogiek Welfare Council http://www.ogiek.org/indepth/news-spotlight.htm , sent by ECOTERRA International, Nairobi Node, e-mail: mailhub@ecoterra.net

---

top

- South Africa: Timberrr.! As the plantations go on growing, more South Africans are crying out a warning

A wide range of stakeholders from environment and community groups, research bodies and decision-makers from government and industry came together in Nelspruit, South Africa in mid-November to discuss a burning issue - the impact of timber plantations.

The conference, on Timber Plantations: Impacts, Future Visions and Global Trends was hosted by GEASPHERE in coalition with TimberWatch S.A. on 13 and 14 November. It gave a chance for the growing number of environmentalists and stakeholders to vent their mounting concern, and to allow them to interact with representatives from government and the industry, to discuss issues, and search for common ground to develop a future "forest" vision.

They are afraid of the continuing impact of what one local landowner described as: "billions of rows of thirsty pine, gum and wattle masquerading as 'forests' which cast a sterile blanket over huge areas of Mpumalanga, KwaZulu Natal and elsewhere, to produce pulp, planks and poles for the profit of shareholders. The negatives outweigh the benefits."

One keynote speaker was Professor Braam van Wyk of the University of Pretoria, on the threats to a most precious resource - "Southern African Grasslands: Aspects of their Biodiversity, Dynamics and Management". He pointed out that in traditional timber-producing countries, plantations are used to produce timber trees through modifying a natural resource, where boreal forests in the northern hemisphere are either selectively used or "clear cut" and replanted with species very much native to that part of the world.

But in Southern Africa, he said, we destroy a natural resource before we establish another resource - which must then be artificially maintained. "What are we destroying?" he asked. "Is the destruction worth what we replace it with?"

Grasslands - that's a misnomer, said the professor - because most of the flora consists of non-grassy herbs, shrubs and wild flowers, with grass making up a mere 11 per cent of the plant diversity in some grasslands, notably in the North Eastern Mountain Sourveld, where most heavy "afforestation" has occurred. The grassland biome is home to around 4,000 plant species (compared to a country like Sweden with 1,700 plant species) thus providing a very valuable genetic resource. Also, plants create habitat - a place to live - for other species. Many animals endemic to the grassland biome are severely threatened by their habitat being destroyed. Amphibians in the KwaZulu Natal Midlands have been severely affected - some species may even be extinct - due to excessive destruction of the grassland.

An essential component of grassland management is fire, known as the "life blood" of the grassland. "You take away the fire - you destroy the grassland". Obviously, management of industrial timber plantation compartments excludes this vital regenerator, so the grassland destruction is total.

Grassland destruction by ploughing or establishing timber plantations is considered irreversible, because grassland, as a culmination of millions of years of different vegetation types superimposed on each other, is impossible to recreate.

Eucalyptus, wattle and pine trees are notorious for the "hydrophobic" quality they induce in the soils. A waxy layer coats the sand grains and impairs water penetration. This effect is worsened by fire. Grassland however, provides for increased water retention and helps to prevent flooding.

Most grassland studies have focused on grass species which are important to livestock production, so "we know essentially nothing about the precious grassland biome," said Van Wyk. "Should we continue to destroy it?"

In his travels through rural areas he sees row upon row of eucalyptus and pine monocultures - newly established - in the primary grasslands. This is a problem the forestry industry must admit, he says, and it must dialogue with all affected parties to find a solution. He called for the launching of a National Grassland Day, to generate grassland awareness and appreciation.

David Lindley from the Mondi Wetland Project spoke of wetland management within the forestry industry. He produced a document stating that the Mondi Timber Company is committed to removing all trees planted in wetlands and riparian zones by the year 2010.

Researcher Dirk Versfeld outlined a programme for the timber industry to convert gradually to indigenous hardwood timber species or "slow wood", which is a long term investment with a high value. He is co-author with Mike Warren of "Indigenous Forestry Alternatives for Rural Development". (For a copy of this document please mail owen@soft.co.za ) Nhlanhla Msweli from Swaziland Campaign against Poverty and Economic Inequality (SCAPEI) spoke about the impact of timber plantations on the rural people of Swaziland, where huge areas of the grasslands have disappeared beneath monoculture timber, denying people a choice of livelihood.

In a timber plantation cattle cannot be grazed, food cannot be grown, and animals cannot be hunted. People who have lived sustainably, using the natural environment as subsistence farmers, have been removed from their land and displaced to the mountains where they cannot continue their lifestyle. Msweli spoke of low wages and job retrenchments in the forestry industry, coupled to water and air pollution in the vicinity of the paper mills. He bemoaned the fact that large multinational corporations continue to annex and exploit the land to the benefit of multinational shareholders, and to the disadvantage of the people of the land.

George Dor from the Jubilee S.A. movement spoke on "Ecological Debt: Reparations for Damage by Industry, Mining, Large Dams and Forestry". He pointed out that the huge debts which many developing countries struggle to pay back to institutions like the World Bank and the IMF have often been incurred to finance projects which had little significant benefits to the people of the borrowing country, and now lay a burden on development.

New loans have to be taken out to finance old debt, and these come with conditions benefiting the corporations of lending countries. Activities in South Africa such as mining, building large dams, establishing industrial timber plantations and developing tourism directly benefit corporations from northern countries, often at the expense of the people and environment of the South. "Ecological debt" is what the countries of the north owe those of the south for ecological destruction - similarly huge corporations "owe" the affected people a debt. Dor noted that social and environmental movements work in isolation from each other - they should be networking much closer around common issues.

Maria Rydlund from the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation (SSNC) came specially from Sweden for the conference, and gave an international perspective. She outlined how monoculture timber plantations impact on many developing countries such as Indonesia, Thailand and Brazil. Most timber produced in the southern hemisphere supplies consumers in the north. Forest people in the south are displaced to make way for privately-owned monoculture timber plantations from which they derive little real benefit. They are no longer forests - they have much more in common with an agricultural monocrop.

Human Rights lawyer Richard Spoor explained how the legal framework allows corporations to externalize costs. The legal system is inherited from the Romans of 2000 years ago, when there was an abundance of water, soils and wildlife. By exercising their "legal rights" to own property and profit, people could destroy the natural environment with nothing to fear from the law. This attitude persists to today, where people affected by big business "exercising its right to own and profit" have no recourse to the law to receive compensation for their losses. Spoor argued that the true costs of the timber industry are not taken into account. When the water dries up on a farm downstream from a big timber plantation the cost to the farmer should be borne by the timber industry. The impact of pollution from pulp mills on farmers and other downstream users needs to be quantified. Peoples displaced from the land and losing their livelihoods should be compensated. If all these hidden costs are quantified the timber industry would be shown up as much less of a corporate profit-maker. Spoor called for much more environmental, social and legal activism, aiming to make people more aware of how big industries impact on our natural and social environment - and the real costs to society.

Wally Menne from the TimberWatch coalition gave feedback from the recent World Forestry Congress, and he spoke about the vast differences between forests and plantations. He spoke of the physical impacts of plantation management on local forest systems, such as biodiversity loss, erosion due to timber extraction, and heavy impact on water supply. Plantations have been called "thieves" of water, as they consume more water than is actually delivered through rainfall, said Menne.

Morne Lizamore from the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF) delivered a presentation outlining the regulations the forestry industry is bound by, and the processes involved in obtaining licenses to establish timber plantations. South African legislation allows for broad public participation, he said, and more people should feel empowered to be part of the process and make informed interventions about developments which will impact on their environment.

The industry was represented by Mike Edwards, Chief Director of Forestry South Africa. He said that due to increased demand the industry needs to establish another 250,000 hectares of industrial eucalyptus monocultures to supply the growing demand for pulp, but that the main obstacle to this growth would be availability of water and soils. Also, the industry would lose a significant amount of trees through removing them from wetlands, riparian zones and illegally planted areas to comply with legislation and certification regulations. He mentioned that the industry would make increasing use of "out-growing" schemes to obtain raw material. Edwards committed the industry to sustainable management and transparency, thanking the organisers for the opportunity to contribute to the event.

Linda Mossop, the government's Chief Director of Forestry in DWAF, shared the platform with Mike Edwards and strongly sided with the industry, using the opportunity to publicly thank the industry for their assistance, specially with the government's "afforestation" program in the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu Natal, by which the government aim to "open the industry" to more players. She also welcomed the opportunity for dialogue, and proposed more workshop events to focus on specific plantation impacts.

During discussions after the presentations, some stakeholders said they are uncomfortable with the way government embraces the "forestry" industry. They feel strongly that the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry should act as more of a regulator and less of a promoter of timber plantation activity in South Africa.

On the second day participants traveled by bus through the north eastern mountain sourveld where extensive eucalyptus and pine plantations cover huge tracts of the Mpumalanga uplands. Several practical problems were pointed out, such as trees planted contrary to the law in wetland areas and riparian zones. The tour took in the thousands of hectares of plantation recently destroyed in one of the biggest ever fires, which caused massive losses to the industry and severe damage to the soils.

By: Philip Owen, Geasphere, e-mail: owen@soft.co.za (A document containing presentations and minutes of proceedings on 13 November is available on request to owen@soft.co.za )