• Burma: Behind the glitter of rubies, sapphires and jade
• Indonesia: Flood tragedy in Sumatra on account of road project
• Philippines: Opposition against mining policy
• Thailand: SmartWood suspends FSC certification of two plantations

- Burma: Behind the glitter of rubies, sapphires and jade

Burma is famous for its rich deposits of gemstones which include rubies, sapphires, and jade. The town of Mogok, which is located in the eastern corner of Mandalay Division along the Shan State border, has been the centre for ruby and sapphire mining for eight-hundred years.

The mining enterprises operating in Mogok were first taken over by British interests in 1888. They were later nationalized in 1962 following the military coup headed by General Ne Win. Until comparatively recently, however, these enterprises were relatively small-scale and caused limited damage to the surrounding environment. Since 1989, there has been a major shift towards large-scale mining operations which has transformed the industry.

The rapid rise of non-local actors, capital, and equipment have also accelerated the ecological devastation of the region. Between 1989-1992, modern mining equipment caused extensive damage, especially around Mogok and Mineshu. In the process, local businessmen have been displaced by increased competition and corruption. They now find themselves working as poorly paid laborers for outside business interests. Another effect has been the gradual migration of workers and small businessmen from Mogok to mining areas in Shwe Gin, Pegu Division. In the process, many local Karen miners and farmers have experienced the same social, economic, and environmental problems that prompted these entrepreneurs to leave Mogok in the first place.

The expansion of intensive forms of resource extraction is, in most cases, unsustainable. Mining activities are occurring in a context where there is no regulatory oversight. People working in mines during the rainy season regularly risk drowning from flash floods or the collapse of retaining walls. Workers who sort gems after they are removed from the ground must do so under the hot sun since much of the surrounding area has been clear-cut and is devoid of shade. Workers have also reported that breaks are rarely allowed and that they regularly face verbal and physical abuse from the soldiers who provide on-site security for the companies.

More recently gravity-fed, multi-level sluices with screens have been used. But with the arrival of the outside business interests, miners have begun using hydraulic gold mining. This highly destructive method uses diesel-powered pumps to force jets of pressurized water through a hose which is then aimed at a river bank or the side of a rocky outcropping. Under such pressure, large amounts of rock and earth are simply washed away. The gold-bearing sediments are then channeled through a large sluice which is typically lined with liquid mercury (quicksilver). The mercury captures the finer particles of gold through a chemical process known as amalgamation and they are later separated. The remaining mix of debris and polluted muds are washed downstream. Since mercury is highly poisonous to people and animals, the practice has been banned in many places around the world. Currently, it is unknown whether these chemicals are being used in these two locations, although it is widely used elsewhere in Burma for gold mining, having caused severe environmental damage.

Local sources report that mining activities, especially the use of hydraulic mining, around Mogok and Shwe Gin Township have led to a common pattern of problems, including:

* The collapse of river beds due to the removal of silt and soils from banks of the river, the base of trees and walls
* Increased levels of soil erosion
* Increased levels of sediment
* Reduced fish stocks due to changes in water temperature
* Increased water pollution from mining tailings (i.e. the finely ground up materials left after the desired ore or mineral is removed)
* Increased water pollution from “slurry” or acid mine drainage (i.e. the mixture of tailings, water, and chemicals, usually cyanide or mercury)
* Increased water pollution due to diesel fuels and oils leaking from the pumps and other mining equipment
* The loss of ponds and other freshwater sources, such as small creeks, from over-pumping
* The destruction of arable fields due to “deep trenching” and indiscriminate use of heavy equipment (e.g. bulldozers and heavy equipment)
* Increased use of timber to construct sluices and reinforce underground tunnels
* Increased used of non-timber forest products (e.g. bamboo and rattan).

Given Burma’s political and economic reality, most people have little possibilities of opposing these mining activities. Simply, people in these parts of Burma are caught between powerful military and business interests. With few alternatives left, many communities are forced to participate in the unsustainable exploitation of their own local natural resources, even though they know they are destroying the very ecosystems they need for their own survival.

Excerpts from: “Capitalizing on Conflict. How Logging and Mining Contribute to Environmental Destruction in Burma”, by Earth Rights International with Karen Environmental & Social Action Network, October 2003. The full report can be downloaded from http://m1e.net/c?11841838-pSMLVzXzp5lzM%40347152-DvtuggLI338vc

---

top

- Indonesia: Flood tragedy in Sumatra on account of road project

With more than a year into its construction, the controversial US$1.2 million Ladia Galaska road network project will link the west coast of Aceh with the eastern coast of northern Sumatra. Over 90 kilometers out of the planned 505-kilometer-long road cuts through the relatively pristine forest of the central highlands at the Leuser national park, and this would have notorious permanent negative impacts on the environment.

The debate around the project reignited when a huge flash flood on November 2, in Mount Leuser National Park, nearby North Sumatra province, took a toll of more than 150 dead and scores missing.

The government in Jakarta blamed illegal loggers for the flood. However, an investigation by the European Union-funded Leuser Management Unit has concluded that the floods were a result of landslides in the northern part of the park, which blocked the Bohorok River, causing it to finally burst, creating a flash flood. Critics of the road project charge it for the tragedy on the grounds that it has disrupted the Leuser park environment and is setting the stage for an even greater environmental disaster. There is also a feel that the Ladia Galaska project will accelerate the destruction of the last significant area of tropical forest on the island of Sumatra.

The Indonesian Forum on Environment (Walhi) is pursuing a lawsuit against Aceh governor Abdullah Puteh in relation to the construction of the highway and wants the project to be stopped. Yarrow Robertson, director of the Leuser Management Unit, has been studying the Leuser ecosystem for more than 20 years. He says a road planned through the national park to Bohorok, the site of the recent flood, as part of the Ladia Galaska project, would bring other problems too. It would speed up erosion on mountain slopes and cross more than 1,000 rivers and streams, he argues. Below it would lie 580 villages potentially facing landslides and other flooding catastrophes as a result. According to Robertson: "floods and landslides in Aceh and northern Sumatra will be 100 times worse if the Ladia Galaska highway is built”. He pointed out that since 1,000 rivers flow through the Leuser ecosystem, they are likely to flood annually, and if each time they killed 10 people, then 10,000 could die.

It may be wise to see through the alleged reasons for the works. The government of Aceh argues that the highway is needed to improve the economy of its isolated central highlands, which is connected to the rest of the province by one badly maintained road. However, environmentalists suggests that the highway, which failed an environmental impact assessment, could easily be replaced by a railway, which would not cause as much environmental damage by encroachment on the forest. Indeed, it appears that the road would benefit only few people, while water from the Leuser ecosystem sustains more than two million farmers.

Undoubtedly, logging activities will be enabled through easy access to the forest. There are also accusations that the government has backed the road because it will be a goldmine for local officials who can hand out building contracts to logging companies and a bonus to local mayors who approve logging permits. Also, several oil palm plantations adjacent to the projected route will benefit from the highway.

Government officials are still divided over the issue. While Forestry Minister M. Prakosa and State Minister for the Environment Nabiel Makarim have expressed opposition to the project, Minister of Settlement and Infrastructure Soenarno appears to be supportive, claiming that the road project would not increase illegal logging.

If the project were to be completed, the main beneficiaries would be a handful of people with power. At the receiving end, local peoples and their environment would have to bear the negative consequences: floods, landslides, forest, biodiversity and livelihood loss. There is still time to avoid this happening.

Article based on information from: “Road to Ruin”, Marianne Kearney, South China Morning Post, November 12, 2003; “Sumatra floods put spotlight on logging and road building”, Shawn Donnan and Taufan Hidayat, November 24, 2003; “Government told to reconsider road project in Leuser park”, Apriadi Gunawan and Muninggar Sri Saraswati, The Jakarta Post, November 12, 2003; sent by Watch Indonesia!, e-mail: watchindonesia@snafu.de , Website: http://home.snafu.de/watchin/Index-engl.htm ; “Walhi pushes Ladia Galaksor suit for environmental damage”, Nani Farida, The Jakarta Post, November 18, 2003, http://www.ecologyasia.com/NewsArchives/nov2003/thejakartapost.com_20031118_1.htm

---

top

- Philippines: Opposition against mining policy

It is estimated that already 40% of the Philippines territory has been given away under the form of concessions to multinational mining companies. However, this process has not happened without opposition. From the Cordillera region in northern Philippines to the South Eastern region of the Palawan Island, the Subanen, Tagbunau, Pala'wan, Tau't bato and Batak indigenous groups (see WRM bulletins Nº 11, 28, 67) have struggled to defend their territories from the pervasive impacts of mining.

This year, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo started a policy of promotion of mining in the country. Within that framework, a national process of consultations was initiated in February in cooperation with the USAID, which has faced strong opposition from several civil society groups gathered in the National Mining Conference (NMC). They have staged a nationwide "fax barrage" on December 3, to express unified opposition to the National Minerals Policy (NMP) Framework and the Philippine Mining Act of 1995.

As they put it, their opposition is based on the following grounds:

“a. The law is based on an export-oriented economic framework, a policy which remains as a key factor in driving the country's economy to bankruptcy.

b. The law has opened our mineral wealth to full exploitation by foreign investors, thus surrendering our national patrimony and sovereignty to corporate entities who have the control of capital and technical know-how.

c. The law is not based on Philippine realities. We are an archipelago with fragile ecosystems and the areas where minerals are located are inhabited mainly by indigenous peoples.

d. The law does not guarantee the recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples to their territories and their right of self-determination.

e. The law further distorts the development of our economy which could be achieved primarily by strengthening agriculture and undertaking national industrialization instead of just attracting foreign investments for extractive industries like mining.”

In this light, they present the following demands:

“1. Cancel all mining permits already issued and to declare a moratorium on large scale mining activities.

2. Formulate a new National Minerals Policy which respects the integrity of the Creation, truly adheres to the principles of sustainable development, clearly defines the role of the mining industry in strengthening the country’s economy based on supporting agricultural development and national industrialization, ensure that it respects basic human rights and strengthens democratic processes.

3. Legislate a new mining code based on this new National Minerals Policy.

4. For the MGB [Mines and Geosciences Bureau] improve on their practice of democratic processes: to go through a very thorough process of consultations to ensure that those who have been and will be affected by mining operations are fully consulted, allow the expression of people’s sentiments and demands; and that results of consultation be disseminated for comments. We also seek the formation of an inter-sectoral body that will study the impact of mining policies.

5. Recognize and respect indigenous peoples right to land and to self-determination. This should not be diminished when securing permission to access indigenous peoples territories to implement development projects such as mining.

6. For the resolution of outstanding issues of mining-affected communities, (i.e. the clean up of Mogpog and Boac Rivers, conflict between the Subanon peoples in Siocon and TVI, the rights of small scale miners in Diwalwal, Lepanto’s pollution of the Abra river, the rehabilitation of open pit mining areas of Benguet Corporation, the cry of the people of Didipio for a people’s initiative, the protest of the people against Western Mining Corporation etc.) instead of rushing the approval of a clearly pro-mines industry National Minerals Policy.

7. Conduct a social and environmental impact assessment of almost 8 years of implementation of RA [Republic Act] 7942 and its IRR [Implementing Rules and Regulations].”

They claim: “Let the voices of the people be heard. The strength of a government can only be ensured if it responds to the basic aspirations and demands of the majority who still remain marginalized and oppressed.”

Article based on information from: “Urgent Action - 'fax barrage' on Philippines' National Minerals Policy process”, 3rd December 2003, http://www.minesandcommunities.org/Action/action50.htm

---

top

- Thailand: SmartWood suspends FSC certification of two plantations

On 1 December 2003, SmartWood suspended the Forest Stewardship Council certification of two of Forest Industry Organisation’s teak plantations. SmartWood is accredited by FSC to assess whether forestry operations conform to FSC’s principles for well managed forests or plantations.

FIO was established as a state-run logging company in 1947. When the government imposed a logging ban in 1989, many Thai NGOs demanded that FIO be closed down. Since then FIO has tried to reinvent itself as a plantation company. With the FSC certificate suspended, FIO cannot credibly claim that any of its plantations are well managed.

In fact, by logging its teak plantations, FIO is encouraging illegal logging. Veerawat Dheeraprasert, chairperson of the Foundation for Ecological Recovery, a Thai NGO, explains: “If FIO does logging there is an increased chance that there will be illegal logging because the FIO will log and sell to sawmills. These sawmills can easily mix the FIO’s logs with other logs from illegal log sources.”

When SmartWood awarded FIO its FSC certificate in June 2001, it also issued 26 conditions, 15 of which FIO had to meet within one year. A year later, SmartWood determined that FIO had not met twelve of the conditions. SmartWood, however, did not suspend the certificate. Instead, it issued 13 corrective action requests, six of which had to be met within six months.

In January 2003, SmartWood found that FIO had not met four of the corrective action requests. SmartWood, however, did not suspend the certificate. Instead, it issued six corrective action requests, all of which were “effective immediately”.

In June 2003, SmartWood discovered that FIO had still not met five conditions and two corrective action requests. Five months later SmartWood, at last, suspended the certificate.

Certifying FIO was controversial from the start. In November 2000, before SmartWood issued the certificate, Thai NGO TERRA published an article in its magazine “Watershed” about the certification. Rainforest Foundation included a case study on the FIO in its November 2002 critique of FSC, “Trading in Credibility”. In April 2003, Foundation for Ecological Recovery wrote to FSC demanding that FSC withdraw the certificate. WRM Bulletin has covered the issue several times (see WRM Bulletins 48, 64 and 72) and in August 2003, WRM published a book titled “Certifying the Uncertifiable” which included a detailed study that I wrote on the certification of FIO.

Without the pressure of this civil society monitoring, SmartWood may not have suspended the certificate.

When SmartWood suspended FIO’s certificate, it also issued 16 corrective action requests, five of which must be met before FIO’s certificate can be reinstated. Among SmartWood’s corrective action requests are two relating to chain of custody (the technical term for tracking timber from the forest to the end use). More than two years after issuing FIO’s certificate, SmartWood is now asking FIO to “improve the chain of custody system, so that the system consistently documents the movement of logs from the cutting blocks to the log yard.”

The clear implication is that currently FIO cannot reliably track its timber. In this case, there is no way of knowing from which plantation FIO’s timber comes – or even whether the timber is legal or illegal.

One of FIO’s most controversial activities is its role in auctioning illegally logged timber. When illegally logged timber is discovered by the authorities it is passed on to FIO to auction.

For cash-strapped FIO, these auctions are an important source of income. For loggers, they are a way of making illegal timber legal.

Suraphon Duangkhae, secretary general of Wildlife Fund Thailand, describes how logging companies send workers into forests to log illegally. “Then they ask the forest officer to arrest the workers,” he says. “But when the forest officer gets to the area there are no workers, just logs. So they arrest the logs! And then FIO holds an auction and the company that’s behind the scenes comes back and they win the auction.”

In 1997, FIO was embroiled in a major logging scandal. Loggers were illegally cutting trees in the Salween National Park and fraudulently stamping the logs as coming from Burma. Perhaps surprisingly, given that the forestry official who exposed the swindle also revealed that FIO officers were involved, FIO was among the organisations responsible for storing the confiscated logs. Perhaps not so surprisingly, by April this year more than half of the confiscated logs had “disappeared”. In May, FIO was ordered to move the logs to an army camp in Saraburi to prevent further theft.

Recently the Thai government has started to ask awkward questions about the legality of 100,000 teak logs sunk in Chiang Saen Lake in northern Thailand. The owner of the logs, Archa Land Company, claims to have bought the logs from FIO. The problem is that no one can prove where the logs came from. The Nation newspaper reported Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra as saying, “I believe such a large amount of wood would include some illegal timber. There are many ways to falsify records and corrupt officials are involved in the scam.” As if to confirm Thaksin’s worries, 200 of the logs mysteriously caught fire - the day before Natural Resources and Environment Minister Prapat Panyachatraksa was due to inspect them.

On 12 December 2003, an editorial in The Nation pointed out that in order to deal with illegal logging in Thailand, the government must look into the FIO’s role. FSC certification had made the situation worse by enabling FIO to export its timber, thus making “illegal logging even more desirable.” The editorial asked “whether Thailand still needs the FIO, an agency that seems to do more harm than good to the country’s forest conservation efforts.” The editorial’s headline leaves no doubt about The Nation’s opinion: “Do the right thing: abolish the FIO”.

By: Chris Lang, e-mail: chrislang@t-online.de