• Also in the Mekong … plantations are not forests!
• Burma: China Continues Devouring Neighbour’s Forests
• China: Ramsar Mangroves lost to Shrimp Farming
• India: Welcome to Mowgli's Land
• Laos: Ongoing problems with the Asian Development Bank's "successful" Nam Leuk dam

LOCAL STRUGGLES AND NEWS

- Also in the Mekong … plantations are not forests!

The March-June edition of the magazine "Watershed" focuses on the issue of tree plantations in Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam as part of the broader picture of the spread of industrial tree plantations in the South.

This edition of Watershed is the result of a collaborative effort between a large number of individuals and organizations --mostly from within but also from outside the Mekong region-- concerned over the social and environmental impacts resulting from large-scale tree monocultures.

The idea came up at a workshop on commercial tree plantations in the Mekong region held in Chachoengsao Province, Thailand, in May 2003, and was supported by the regional organization TERRA (Towards Ecological Recovery and Regional Alliance), which publishes the magazine Watershed.

This edition of Watershed --whose cover page states that "Plantations are NOT forests"-- is the result of that effort and contains:

- an editorial providing an overview of the issue
- three feature articles focusing on Thailand, Laos and Cambodia
- a number of reports on issues such as plantations and soil erosion, impacts of pulp mills, plantation certification, Finnish involvement in plantations and community perceptions about plantations.

Printed copies of Watershed can be requested to TERRA ( watershed@terraper.org ), while the electronic version of this edition can be accessed at: http://www.wrm.org.uy/countries/Asia/WatershedV9N3.html

---

top

- Burma: China Continues Devouring Neighbour’s Forests

In a letter sent to Premier Wen Jia-bao of the People's Republic of China on June 24, more than twelve conservation groups and more than 30 individuals from the international environmental and academic communities expressed concern regarding Chinese logging in the N'Mai Hku area of northern Burma (the full letter is available at http://www.rainforestrelief.org/News_and_Events/
Rainforest_Relief_News/Burma_Forests_Letter/Letter.html ).

We have said that China is devouring the forests of neighbouring countries (see WRM Bulletin Nº 82). The N'Mai Hku area is part of the Gaoligongshan mountain forest eco-region located on both sides of the border between Burma's Kachin State and Yunnan Province, China. The Gaoligongshan eco-region contains several internationally important rivers, such as the Nujiang (Salween) and the Dulong (Irrawaddy) which flow through Burma. Logging these mountain forests would destroy the watersheds, causing disastrous flood/drought cycles.

China knew well those impacts in 1998 when unsustainable logging in the Yunnan region resulted in extensive flooding, thousands of deaths, large scale human displacement and massive agricultural, economic and infrastructural damage. But the ensuing logging ban implemented by China will prove useless if the conservation of forests along the Yunnan border are not operated on a trans-border scale so the neighboring country's remaining old-growth forests are not devastated.

The concerned Burma citizens and groups request the Chinese government to take immediate action to halt all logging in the N'Mai Hku area, implement stricter cross-border trade regulations, and more effectively apply the existing laws to prevent corruption.

Article based on information from the press release “Letter from Environmentalists Urges Chinese Government to Protect Neighboring Forest Region of Burma”, and “Text of Letter to Premier Wen Jia-bao regarding N’Mai Hku Region”, sent by RainforestRelief, E-mail: relief@igc.org ; http://www.rainforestrelief.org

---

top

- China: Ramsar Mangroves lost to Shrimp Farming

The Leizhou Peninsula is located in the southernmost part of SE China, and forms the stepping-stone to Hainan Island. Leizhou’s 1,500 km coastline and 12,500 km2 land area is sub-tropical, containing many bays and estuaries where long stretches of diverse mangrove forests and the associated mudflats are found. There are 24 recorded species of mangrove found there, and approximately 3,300 ha total area of actual mangrove forest scattered along various isolated stretches of coastlines.

China joined the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands in 1992, and designated 14 Ramsar sites as “Wetlands of International Importance” within China in 2001. These sites are to be managed in China by the State Forest Administration. Unfortunately, major problems exist in properly monitoring and conserving these vital coastal wetland areas putting at serious risk both mangroves and the habitat for thousands of migrating waterfowl. Both flora and fauna, including mangroves and shorebirds, were lost to mainly expanding shrimp farms and over-exploitation.

The many practical contributions that mangroves make to wild fisheries, wood products for building, fuel wood, shoreline protection against erosion, water filtration, and medicinal and dietary values of mangroves for local populations far exceed that of shrimp farming. Mangroves also play a protective role of landward seawalls and dykes in storms and typhoons since they can absorb up to 80% of the wave energy, according to research by the Tropical Forestry Research Institute of the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

A first step to counter the degrading process of mangroves was the establishment of the Zhanjiang Mangrove National Nature Reserve (ZMNNR) in 1997. The total area of the ZMNNR, on Leizhou Peninsula, is approximately 20,300 ha comprised of 12,400 ha of mangroves and 7,900 ha of inter-tidal mudflats. Most of this area is not contiguous mangrove cover, but is composed of large and small patches of mangroves scattered along 1,500 km of the peninsula’s coastline. The mudflats themselves serve a vital function as the resting sites and feeding grounds for migratory shorebirds. As well, the mangrove forests play an important role in preserving the health and integrity of these coastal zones.

Since 1950 when the mangrove area of Zhanjiang was estimated at 17,500 ha, it has declined under heavy development pressures to 12,400 ha., mainly due to the recent rapid expansion of shrimp aquaculture. Declining stocks of fish and shellfish and loss of mangals mean the impoverishment of local communities. This loss of sustainable natural resources has led to a convoluting increase in demand for remaining natural resources among local communities to help offset declining incomes from reduced wild fisheries.

The wheel of misfortune seems to turn faster with each subsequent misfortune. Unfortunately, the current mangrove conservation efforts appear to consist largely of planting exotic species of Sonneratia apetala introduced originally from Bangladesh. With the creation of the ZMNNR, the order came to restore degraded mangrove areas and plant the mudflats. Mangrove tree nurseries were established, and small-scale replanting efforts undertaken with more ambitious plans to come, largely including planting of the non-native mangrove species, Sonneratia apetala, and planting these exotics en masse mainly in important 3,800 ha of mudflat zones.

Meanwhile, little has been done to conserve the remaining mangrove forests and mudflat areas, thus causing serious concern for these important coastal ecosystems and the great biodiversity and vital functions they support.

Because shrimp aquaculture is now perceived as quite a lucrative industry, China would be greatly expanding both its production and exports of shrimp to foreign markets, beginning to compete with, and already overcoming, their rival shrimp producers in Asia and Latin America. Because of low labor and materials costs, China has already out competed its toughest rival, Thailand which was since 1992 the world’s top producer of shrimp, but rapidly lost ground to China’s rising tough competition.

“The roots of the sea”, the interface between land and sea, mangroves are havens of biodiversity and are in peril. They are another life frontier which has been trespassed for the sake of the big capital’s commercial profit.

Excerpted and adapted from: “China’s Mangrove Forests of the Leizhou Peninsula”, Alfredo Quarto, Mangrove Action Project (MAP), sent by the author, E-mail: mangroveap@olympus.net . The full report can be accessed at: http://www.wrm.org.uy/deforestation/mangroves/China.html

---

top

- India: Welcome to Mowgli's Land

At the entrances to the Pench Tiger Reserve straddling the states of Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh are signposts with the words "welcome to Mowgli's land." Mowgli, in Rudyard Kipling’s nineteenth century children’s book entitled “Jungle Book,” is a young boy who grows up talking to all the other inhabitants of the jungle including a mongoose and an elephant. There is no question of Mowgli and his people not living symbiotically with animals in the dense forest. And yet today, Mowgli's land is siphoned off as a National Park and Wildlife Sanctuary and the human inhabitants have either been asked to leave the forest voluntarily or have been forcibly evicted.

In 1995, the World Bank launched the ecodevelopment project (EDC) with the Indian government. Pench Tiger Reserve in Madhya Pradesh was eventually selected as one of the loan recipients. Located in a Fifth Schedule Area, an area reserved for tribal populations such as the Gonds, Pench Tiger Reserve straddles the states of Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra. The general objectives of the project are to protect biodiversity and ecosystems in India by inciting villagers in the buffer zones around the national parks to reduce their dependence on the forests for survival.

And yet, in the World Bank's 1996 "Project Document," it is clearly stated that "India's biological resources are economically important both globally and nationally." And these biological and natural resources will be exploited "for industrial and municipal development." So wildlife will not be protected from global and national industrial development but will be “protected” from tribal populations living in and around the parks. Furthermore, while the World Bank recognizes that "medicinal plants and other non-timber forest products are particularly important as a source of income and subsistence for tribal populations," it has designed a program which clearly denies tribal populations on the peripheries of these national parks access to the biological resources it deems "economically important" to other industrialized populations. Even traditional medicinal plants are cited as important "commercial products" to be exploited by pharmaceutical companies in the future.

One of the EDC “beneficiaries,” Salae, is located approximately one kilometer away from the sanctuary and has a population of 500 Gonds. The villagers depend on forest produce like tendu leaves (used for making “bidees”, the Indian cigar) and mahua seeds (from the mahua tree, used for making an excellent country liquor) for their survival and go to the forest for fuel wood. These villagers have a bhumka, or "traditional healer" performing the religious ceremonies and collecting various herbs, twigs, nuts and fruit from the forest for medicinal purposes. His son is also studying to become a bhumka. When asked about how it is they identify as Gonds, the villagers replied that they differ from non-tribal people because they have a bhumka rather than a pandit — Hindu priest.

While the ecodevelopment project was initiated in 1997, the villagers clearly explained that they don’t have any idea what the project is about; forest officials haven’t conducted a single meeting in their village! The forest department installed nine biogas plants (generating cooking gas from cow dung) in the village but none of them are working. When asked why these plants are not working the villagers told us that to run these plants they need water and added that “there is no water in the village for drinking, so how can we put water in these biogas plants.” Though the irrigation department and a local NGO has constructed a well half a kilometer away from the village, it only caters to their daily needs.

There is constant conflict between the villagers and forest department regarding the compensation for loss of cattle and crops to wild animals (tiger, wild boar, deer etc). The villagers do not receive any compensation though there is a provision for it. The forest department does the paperwork but does not give any compensation to the villagers whose survival depends on these two sources of income. Moreover, villagers are fined if their animals trespass into the park and are often arrested and put in jail. When the villagers were asked whether the project has changed or affected their lives in any way, the villagers said that nothing has changed; “we were harassed before and we are still harassed.”

The village of Durgapur, located two kilometres from the sanctuary, has integrated fifteen Gond families from the displaced village of Alikatta in the sanctuary. They were all born and brought up in Alikatta on the banks of the Pench River. They had good agricultural land in Alikatta and many of the men also had jobs as night watchmen or building roads for the Forest Department. In Alikatta they were growing rice, maize and wheat and didn't have water shortages.

The villagers of Alikatta were displaced from inside the sanctuary when the state hydroelectric dam started flooding their land. They were resettled in Durgapur ten years ago, in 1993, and were told that they had to move because a National Park had been created and a dam was built. They say they moved "voluntarily" when they realized that rising water levels were beyond their control and that wild animals were destroying their crops, but they were clearly told to leave and forced to move by circumstances.

These villagers want us to know that they were promised good land, irrigation, wells and a dam but that all the promises have been broken. They were also promised money but never got it. They were given bricks for their homes but had to provide all the other building materials such as bamboo themselves. They were also promised work in a tourist lodge but they have yet to see the tourist lodge. They are very angry about the five or six acres of land each family was given as it is of "poor quality." They have severe water problems and have yet to see any provisions from the government and forest department for irrigation.

They know about the EDC because the forest officials came to tell them that there was money available for building bunds, ponds, wells, etc. But they haven't seen any of the money and no bunds, ponds or wells have been built. And yet, their only request is that their water problem be solved. They need water to irrigate fields not sufficient to sustain them and not yielding enough rice without the water. They were not offered any alternative sources of livelihood and must "go to Nagpur for work." These villagers say they get firewood from their fields and use dried cow dung for fuel. They don't go into the forest anymore as they get arrested and jailed. What they got from the EDC were six biogas plants, three of which are working, and fifteen pressure cookers.

The women were told about a sewing centre four kilometres away and were told that if they attended the sewing course they would get a sewing machine and a cycle. However, two of the women report that when they went to the sewing centre, they were asked for their Scheduled Tribe Certificates. The women explained that they couldn't present their Scheduled Tribe Certificates as the certificates were in their mothers' villages. Then they were asked to sign papers but they cannot read or write. So they were excluded from the program. Women who did attend the sewing training are angry because they haven't received any of the sewing machines or cycles they were promised. But they know that in another village thirty-six cycles were distributed.

Villagers in the buffer zone of Pench National Park were not consulted in the micro-planning process of World Bank's ecodevelopment project. The schemes do not suit local needs and villagers are losing their sources of livelihood due to their exclusion from the national park and restricted entry into the sanctuary. Gond culture and identity has been neglected even though the national park is in a Fifth Scheduled Area; relations between villagers and the Forest Department have deteriorated.

It is not clear that wildlife was being adequately "protected" when a dam was built and the sanctuary opened to tourists. The states of Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh started constructing a dam in the sanctuary adjacent to the national park as part of a hydroelectric project despite the national park's mandate to protect wildlife in 1974 —much wildlife habitat was submerged. Villagers in Madhya Pradesh are experiencing water shortages but no water is provided by the hydroelectric project or the EDC. The loan from the World Bank has been spent and there is nothing to show for it other that the gradual eviction of tribal populations from the forest.

Meanwhile, global and national industrial interests are sanctioned and supported by the state apparatus. The village bhumka is arrested for entering the sanctuary to collect medicinal plants but these same plants are being "protected" for harvesting by multinational pharmaceutical companies. The tigers aren't safe at all.

One thing is for certain: the supposed new paradigm on protected areas (one that respects the rights of indigenous and local people), agreed to at the World Parks Congress in Durban, and the Convention on Biological Diversity in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, can not come fast enough for the people of "Mowgli’s land".

By: Anjoli Bandyopadhyay. Research based on interviews with villagers in six villages in India. Anjoli wishes to thank the research team of Samata, Satish Kumar and Mithun Raj, for their insights and translation, and for inviting her to join them on field studies supported by Tom Griffiths of the Forest Peoples Programme in the UK. Anjoli is a member of the Global Caucus on Community Based Forest Management, which supports local communities and Indigenous Peoples to assert their rights and assume their responsibilities to manage, control, and use their forests in ways that are socially just, ecologically sound, and economically viable. Updates on the Caucus are currently available at http://www.forestsandcommunities.org . Join our online discussion group by sending a note to: globalcbfm@yahoogroups.com

---

top

- Laos: Ongoing problems with the Asian Development Bank's "successful" Nam Leuk dam

The Nam Leuk dam has caused serious problems for local communities, as documented in a recent report by Lao researcher Phetsavanh Sayboualavan. Based on a visit to seven villages affected by the dam in May 2003, Phetsavanh's report describes increased health problems, food shortages, flooding, destroyed fisheries, dead livestock, illegal logging and corruption associated with the project.

The 60 MW Nam Leuk dam was completed in 2000, with funding from the Asian Development Bank. The ADB denies any ongoing problems caused by the project.

"Where there were environmental and social impacts, these have been adequately remedied," states the ADB's 2002 project completion report on Nam Leuk. The project is "successful" according to the Bank.

Some of the indigenous Hmong people who were forced to move to make way for the reservoir now live in Thang Deng village. An old man in Thang Deng told Phetsavanh, "I want to move to another place, if there are relatives there. That is because this new village is difficult. There is not enough land to do agriculture, and the land that is available is not good quality either. Hunger is increasing all the time."

Rice supplies promised by the government sometimes do not arrive. Many villagers have moved from Thang Deng to try to find better land to farm. "If one sees the people, their problems are obvious from how thin they are. Their bodies are not in good condition," writes Phetsavanh.

Water from the Nam Leuk reservoir is diverted into the Nam Xan River. Villagers living along the Nam Xan told Phetsavanh that in 1999 many of their cows and buffaloes died after drinking the bad smelling water from the reservoir. Villagers' vegetable gardens have been flooded and fisheries largely destroyed.

Downstream of the dam, the Nam Leuk River has far less water than previously. Villagers attribute increased illness to poor water quality in the river. Fishing is no longer viable.

The Nam Leuk dam was built in the Phou Khao Khouay National Park, habitat to rare and endangered species including tigers, elephants and gibbons, as well as large numbers of fish species.

The ADB argues that Nam Leuk is "unlike traditional hydropower projects" as profits from the dam are supposed to help fund conservation in Phou Khao Khouay. Indeed, according to the ADB, building the dam "will improve overall prospects for successful and sustainable protection of the natural resources".

Villagers report that logging associated with the project was excessive and uncontrolled. A company run by the Lao military, Bholisat Phattana Khed Phoudoi (BPKP - the Mountain Region Development Company), won the contract to log the reservoir area.

BPKP is the same company that clearcut the reservoir area of the proposed Nam Theun 2 dam (see WRM Bulletins 44 and 50). On the Nam Theun 2 contract, in addition to the reservoir area, BPKP also logged several areas of forest above the reservoir.

At Nam Leuk, the ADB estimates the value of the timber that BPKP logged to be worth between $2 million and $3 million. Of this, according to the ADB, three per cent was cut illegally from outside the reservoir area.

BPKP's contract was paid for by the ADB. The ADB was effectively funding illegal logging inside a National Park. Yet the ADB's completion report makes no mention of what happened to the money from the illegally logged trees, or whether BPKP was penalised in any way for breaking the law.

Villagers told Phetsavanh that BPKP logged good quality trees, but reported the timber as being of low quality, allowing BPKP and government officials to make illegal profits. Villagers ask why government officials were allowed to benefit from cutting large areas of forest, while villagers are not even allowed to cut small trees for their own use.

In February 2002, the ADB reported problems with the disbursement of funds from the Nam Leuk dam to Phou Khao Khouay. "Much remains to be done for the development of the Phou Khao Khouay National Park to make it into a real national park", states the ADB's project completion report.

More than two years later, in June 2004, ADB's Country Director in Laos, James Nugent, told Aviva Imhof of International Rivers Network that there is still no management plan for the Phou Khao Khouay National Park.

Villagers have not been adequately compensated for the losses caused by the construction of the Nam Leuk dam. Phetsavanh concludes that villagers have become cynical, and do not believe that the government and the ADB are serious about addressing the problems. "They can only hope that their voices are heard in the future," writes Phetsavanh.

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

Phetsavanh Sayboualavan's report, "The Forgotten Victims of the Nam Leuk Dam in Laos: Summary of Fact-Finding Trip to Affected Villages" is available at http://www.rwesa.org/document/Nam_Leuk_2004.pdf