|
|
WRM Campaign Material
|
Tree Plantations:
Impacts and Struggles Integration can aggravate deforestation A group of NGO representatives from many countries of the region met in the Environmental Forum of the Peoples' Summit of the Americas held in Chile and analized the forest issue within the framework of the trade-related integration process being promoted by governments through ALCA (Free Trade Agreement of the Americas). The results of the analysis clearly showed that deforestation and forest degradation constitute a common denominator in practically all de countries of the region and that the current integration process, which emphasizes on the economy in detriment of the environmental and social issues, will do nothing but aggravate the situation. Given the enormous importance of forests both for the peoples that inhabit them and for the maintenance of a number of vital functions they play both at local, regional and global levels (biodiversity conservation, water and climate regulation, etc.), participants decided to present a number of demands to governments to ensure forest conservation in the region. What follows is the synthesis report prepared by the Forest Group of the Environmental Forum: "FORESTS During the month of April 1998, civil society present at the Peoples' Summit demand governments to carry out an evaluation of the risks that the current model implies for the conservation of native forests, which hold the largest part of existing terrestrial biodiversity in the hemisphere and that play a number of essential ecological functions, both at the local and global level. In such context, it is important to take into account that industrial tree plantations, frequently treated as forests, have very few of the latter's characteristics and thereby must not be considered as such. Plantations are not forests. Past experience shows that commercial liberalization agreements which do not include environmental and social safeguards have more negative than positive effects. The Free Trade Agreement between the USA, Canada and Mexico has weakened forest protection measures and standards, has resulted in the loss of employment in the US forest sector and has intensified the exploitation of native forests in Canada, without upgrading its inefficient and destructive logging practices, and has put Mexico in clear disadvantage in relation with its commercial partners. Consequently it must not be assumed -as is being done by governments in the region- that there is a mutually beneficial relationship between trade liberalization, market opening and sustainable use of forests. The promotion of international trade and economic liberalization, exclusively based on market opening, has not taken into account the environmental consequences in the short, medium and long term. The citizen organizations of the hemisphere understand that it is necessary to urgently promote, in all international, bilateral or multilateral negociations, the respect for the principles and criteria of sustainable development. Within this context, the organizations present at the Peoples' Summit call on governments to consider: 1. That forests are varied and complex ecosystems, depositories of great biodiversity and that must therefore be used with respect to the balance of the biotic and abiotic elements which compose them. In the Americas, forests are the home of multiple peoples, particularly indigenous, forest-dependent peoples and other traditional communities. Their territorial, social and cultural rights, their style of life and civilization and their use of natural resources must be guaranteed. That is an essential condition to build more equitable and sustainable societies and to ensure the conservation of forests and of the environmental functions they perform. 2. That forest conservation must be prioritized in a true integration process. Commercial and investment agreements must be subordinated to international environmental agreements and to the relevant national, regional and local legislation. 3. They must promote and support broad and effective citizen participation in decision-making which affect forests. 4. They must design and implement territorial management systems contributing to link agrarian policies to forest policies, incorporating the needs and priorities of local populations. 5. They must adopt criteria and indicators to verify if forest use is sustainable in their respective territories and to evaluate if commercial integration affect them negatively or positively. 6. They must eliminate existing environmental and economic subsidies which favour the unsustainable use of forests and accelerate their destruction, while establishing subsidies for environmentally beneficial technologies, sustainable practices and particularly remove subsidies to large-scale tree monoculture plantations. 7. They must implement an in-depth institutional reform which subordinates the institutions in charge of forests to national environmental institutions which should ensure the effective implementation of forest protection legislation and be provided with the necessary economic resources to carry out such task. 8. They must include legislation in order that investments which might affect forests contemplate prior evaluations of their potential environmental and social impacts, in which all interested groups, particularly local populations, are able to participate in the final decision. 9. They must protect forests from large-scale exploitation and avoid all substitution of native forests for plantations. Special emphasis must be put on the protection of endangered species. 10. They must ban the export of non-processed wood, particularly logs and wood chips." Latin America's forests: the time is ripe for change The Climate Change Convention meeting held in Argentina is a good opportunity to highlight the issue of forests and tree plantations in Latin America. We have therefore focused this issue of the Bulletin on a number of representative examples of the problems and struggles which are currently occuring in the region. Government double-speak is exemplified -though by no means monopolized- by Brazil. While championing forest protection in global fora, its policies and actions continue resulting in further forest loss. Government-sponsored migration to the forest, conversion of forest lands to agriculture and cattle raising, forest fires, dam building and illegal logging continue unabated, while its global international discourse clearly pertains to the area of virtual reality, with little in common with what is actually happening at the ground level. Large-scale tree plantations -one of the cherished solution of global technocrats to climate change- are increasingly being opposed by local people affected by their social and environmental impacts, as well as by most environmental NGOs. Struggles against them are mushrooming from Mexico to Argentina, but governments seem to be deaf and blind to peoples' opposition to such forestry model. We are improving the environment! they say. We are planting forests and countering the greenhouse effect! they add. Impacts on people, on water, on soils, on biodiversity are quickly dismissed as scientifically unproven facts. Supported by multilateral development institutions, bilateral aid agencies, northern consultancies and machinery providers, Latin American governments increasingly subsidize transnational wood-based companies with both Northern and Southern taxpayer money to increase the area of fast-growing tree monocultures. In most cases, such policy results in the substitution of forest ecosystems by plantations (therefore becoming a direct cause of deforestation), while in some few countries (particularly those located in temperate areas such as Uruguay and certain regions of Argentina), plantations substitute grassland, thereby implying the total destruction of the native prairie ecosystem. Government-sponsored "development" projects continue resulting in further deforestation and forest degradation and in most cases the only visible change has been the inclusion of the word "sustainable" to the same type of projects which have proven to be detrimental to forests in the past. Guyana's and Suriname's forests, for instance -some of the more well preserved forests in the region- are being destroyed by foreign mining and logging companies through concessions awarded by government, without the approval and with the opposition of indigenous peoples and other local communities who struggle to preserve the forest. Mangroves throughout the region continue to be destroyed -with government support- by shrimp farming, with the aim of increasing exports to obtain foreign currency to pay back loans from international credit institutions. Local peoples, whose livelihoods depend to a large extent on products obtained from the mangroves, are deprived access to them and only receive back a completely degraded ecosystem once the shrimp farms are abandoned. Oil and increasingly gas exploitation are being promoted throughout the region, both by governments and multilateral institutions, with the resulting destruction of forests, (including water and air pollution and biodiversity loss) and peoples' livelihoods. Local communities are opposing such activity and a number of struggles are under way to halt it. Among them, we wish to highlight the successful struggle of the Cofan indigenous peoples in Ecuador, who have recently closed down an oil well in their territory. Deforestation is further increasing the consequences of natural disasters. The tragedy which recently happened in Honduras and Nicaragua during the occurrence of hurricane Mitch could have been much lesser if forests areas had not been cleared. Mudslides and deadly floods were the result of years of deforestation. Clearance of forest land in the region is always a direct or indirect result of government policies and not -as they try to portray- the result of ignorance and poverty. Unfair land-tenure policies, the promotion of logging and of the substitution of forests by other "more productive", export-oriented activities, as well as many other policies leading to deforestation, are all the result of government-led "development." Road-building, now acklowledged as one of the major underlying causes of deforestation, continues being promoted both by governments and multilateral agencies. In Ecuador, a large tract of primary forest belonging to the Chachi indigenous peoples will be soon affected by a new road linking the area to southern Colombia and to other Ecuadorian provinces. Even in cases where governments seem to have finally decided to protect the forest by creating reserves, they break their own rules whenever their economic policy decides that the economy comes before conservation. Such a case is highlighted by the struggle of local communities in Venezuela, fighting to protect the Imataca forest reserve, which the government is destroying to export electricity to Brazil and to produce cheap energy for mining companies which will further destroy the forest. Indigenous peoples are struggling throughout the region to achieve the official recognition of their territories, which constitutes a basic step to ensure forest conservation. Such struggle has achieved some important successes in specific cases, but almost always against a background of lack of political will from the government and the frequently violent opposition of local or transnational economic interests. In general terms, the protection of local communities' human rights and the conservation of forests and other ecosystems are dangerous activities in the region. The long list of people murdered increases every year and we sadly inform about the most recent deaths in Colombia. Within such context, there are however positive signs. Both at country and international level, more and more people are becoming aware about the vital need to protect the forests and are taking action to support the rights of forest peoples and forest-dependent peoples as a means to ensure such aim. At the local level, more communities are standing up to defend their rights and their forests. Even though governments' discourse is clearly divorced from their actions, the adoption of such a discourse is a clear sign that the time is ripe for change. Investors’ paradise for forestry projects After the attempt of the Argentinian authorities during the recent COP4 on Climate Change in Buenos Aires to gain the favour of Annex I countries putting forward the polemic issue of voluntary reductions of greenhouse gases by developing countries, the Argentinian government continues its efforts to pave the way for the entry of the country into the globalized economy. Last September the Lower House passed a forestry promotion bill that offers tax breaks and subsidies for foreign investors interested in establishing tree plantations in that country. The government hopes that an average of 200,000 hectares a year will be planted between the year 2000 and 2009. Tree plantations averaged 23,000 hectares during the year 1992 but the annual plantation rate reached 126,000 hectares in 1998 as a result of promotional policies by some provincial governments. Spokespersons of the Secretary of Agriculture, stated that the guarantees offered to private investors in the forestry sector can be considered a model for the whole of Latin America, and expressed that as a result of this law a large influx of foreign investment is expected. To their eyes, Argentina is an investors’ paradise for forestry projects, since growth rates in several species –as yellow pines and eucalyptus- is very high and land prices are even cheaper than in Brazil. However, it is not hard to realize that there is actually nothing new in the Argentinian Forestry Law. It is the same scheme repeated in the neighbour countries Chile, Uruguay and Paraguay: neoliberal oriented economies, that deny resources for social security and education or to promote other productive sectors, but devote large sums of money not only for directly supporting private investors in the forestry sector, but also for creating the required infraestructure such as roads, ports, etc. Obviously a very good deal for investors. A number of foreign companies have quickly perceived this. The Chilean firms Arauco and Compania Manufacturera de Papeles y Cartones (CMPP) are keen to occupy vast grassland areas with tree monocultures. While giant Arauco already owns the second largest plantation in the country, CMPP is expanding its plantations to feed a large pulp mill to be installed in in the near future. Other newcomers include New Zealand’s Fletcher Challenge, US’ Inland Container and Germany’s Danzer. In a workshop held in Rosario this November, organized by the forestry industry, Mr Erik Kivimaki, Ambassador of Finland to Argentina, promoted the import of Finnish machinery and know-how for promoting the development of the forestry sector in Argentina. Finland is a strong stakeholder in the sector worldwide and its forestry model for export has been severely criticised by environmental organizations in the host countries and in Finland itself. Of course the Anglo-Dutch oil company Shell –that also owns big eucalyputs plantations in Uruguay, Chile, Brazil and Paraguay- could not be absent in this process. Shell’s move looks still more worrying for the environment, since the company aims to obtain environmental credits on greenhouse gas emissions -under the Clean Development Mechanisms established by the Kyoto Protocol- for the 24,200 hectares of plantations it has installed in Buenos Aires Province. Another plantation project with ponderosa and oregon pine in Chubut Province, in the Patagonia region, is also seeking to obtain carbon credits. Such project, in charge of CIEFAP and supported by the German Agency GTZ, already occupies 55,000 hectares and 10,000 additional hectares are to be planted by the end of this year. According to its promoters, exotic trees would act as pioneer species in this southern savanna ecosystem, to be later replaced by native species, but such reasoning does not seem to make much sense. Having faced severe criticism over the development of monoculture tree plantations in tropical areas --that imply the destruction of natural forests-- now foresters and governmental agencies are seeing with good eyes projects related to LUCF (Land Use Change and Forestry) in temperate regions, under the Clean Development Mechanisms. They are claiming that tree plantations in grasslands would contribute to recover degraded soils, as well as to counteract the greenhouse effect, which are seemingly good arguments to obtain public support. However a capital issue is being put to side: grasslands are not only the natural and physical basis for production in those regions, but also the major source of biodiversity in their ecosystems. Large scale plantations are definitively not a positive factor to this regard. Therefore promotion of large-scale tree monocrops in Argentina must be seen as a different type of environmental destruction under the guise of a "green" activity. Sources: Financial Times, 24/9/98; La Capital, 5/11/98; Buenos Ayres Issue # 6 9/11/98. Eucalyptus and pines in the Bolivian Andes What follows are quotes from research carried out in the Bolivian Andes by Danish researcher Thor Hjarsen. The full text can be found in the following web site: http://www.aki.ku.dk/zmuc/ver/staff/thjarsen.htm "During the last 13 years a forestry project: "Programa de Repoblamiento Forestal" (PROFOR), has planted more than 15 million trees in the Andean zone in Cochabamba. About 80 per cent of the trees are Eucalyptus globulus and Pinus radiata. This important project [funded by the Swiss government] has largely neglected to acknowledge the role of native tree species for erosion control and preservation of ecosystems and water catchments. Little attention has also been given to the fact, that the indigenous communities also rely on the non-timber resources offered by the Polylepis forests such as medicine plants, game and wild tuber plants. Fast growing exotics should only be used when a rapid supply of firewood and construction timber is needed and -with great care- for urgent erosion control. Long-term ecological, hydrological and rural socio-economical goals require instead protection and regeneration of the endangered Polylepis forests by true reforestation, and zonation of different land-uses. I have identified land-use practices in the forestry sector that should be halted immediately due to documented negative effects on the highly threatened biodiversity of the Bolivian Andes. I will express concerns for the negative effects on water-balance, agricultural production and socio-economy from this forestry, which mainly relies on the establishment of plantations with Eucalyptus spp. and Pinus spp. It was found that the exotic plantations did not remove human pressure on native forests, because the exotic trees were regarded as a cash crop by the peasants and landowners. Therefore, wood for household needs was continuously collected in the natural forests and woodlands. The major promoter of plantation forestry in the Cochabamba area is a joint-venture forestry project: Programa de Repoblamiento Forestal (PROFOR). This study also documents that several exotic plantations have been established inside or very close to the native woodlands of the conservation dependent kehuia trees (Polylepis). I myself worked in the Cochabamba area of Bolivia (one of the endemism centres) trying to assess the impacts on the avifauna and natural vegetation from (traditional) agriculture forestry in the mountain, and from modern plantation projects mainly relying on exotics (Pinus and Eucalyptus). My data shows that the agriculture and forestry practised by the village communities does not pose any significant threat to the endangered bird species or the general biodiversity, as long as native forest vegetation is left between fields or in mosaics. The endangered bird species seems to accept even high levels of human "disturbances". The major factor replacing the endangered avifauna was 1) lack of natural forests and 2) establishment of plantations. From the above "stories" the approach in these areas to protect biodiversity and regenerate water resources is to: 1) Help farmers with true reforestation and land management 2) Avoid exotics as far as possible." Source: Thor Hjarsen, August 1998 Tupinikim and Guarani indigenous peoples vs Aracruz Cellulose Thanks to the letter campaign and the pressure from Brazilian and international organizations and institutions, FUNAI (the State Agency on Indigenous Peoples issues) published in the official gazette -with considerable delay- the identification reports on the extension and demarcation of the indigenous lands of Tupinikim and Guarani on January 13th. Eight days later Aracruz Celulose filed its response, aimed at proving that the company is the legitimate owner of the land presently claimed by the Tupinikim. The company choses to ignore history, since the Tupinikim already occupied a vast territory -that is currently part of the States of Espirito Santo, Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paulo, Minas Gerais and Bahia- when the Portuguese arrived at the beginning of the XVI century. In 1610 the Portuguese Crown gave back to the Tupinikim one "sesmaria" of land they asked as first people in the region. The presence of Tupinikim in the area was also already recorded in reports of 1912 and 1919 by the Indian Protection Service. Since 1934 the Brazilian Constitution guarantees the rights of indigenous peoples to the possesion of their traditional lands, which cannot even be handed over to third parties. In 1960 a group of Guarani arrived at the region in their search for "the land without evil", they were received by the Tupinikim and stayed there since. A number of national and international organizations -as well as the Government of Espirito Santo- support the indigenous peoples claim for a further 13759 hectares, situated next to their present reserves. Due to the expansion of eucalyptus plantations following deforestation by Aracruz Celulose, the Tupinikim had been forced to abandon part of their ancestral territories, which are now being claimed as necessary for the maintenance of their traditional subsistence economy and livelihood based on forest resources. On April 22nd, the WRM Secretariat sent a letter to FUNAI expressing our support to its decision in favour of the indigenous peoples claim and one to the Minister of Justice of Brazil asking him to finally establish the limits of the territories according to Tupinikim and Guarani legitimate rights. Representatives of these indigenous peoples are up to travel to Great Britain and Norway, during two weeks, to let NGOs, governments and companies know their points of view and details of their struggle. On arriving back home a press conference will be held. Source: Based on information provided by CIMI, May 1997. The Tupinikim/Guarani struggle continues Even if the Minister of Justice devoted just a few minutes to meet with Indigenous Peoples' delegates and representatives of CIMI on July 15th, they were able to hand him 3800 signatures from 29 countries expressing support to their struggle. A meeting with the undersecretary was arranged for August 12th. In the meantime, Aracruz does not seem to change its attitude towards Indigenous claims. It hired Burson-Marsteller -the biggest public relations company in the world- known for its previous activities in favour of the past Argentinian dictatorship, of Philip Morris in the USA and Union Carbide after the infamous accident in India. As a reaction against Aracruz's main trade union SINTICEL, that has shown its support to the Indigenous Peoples' struggle and even denounced problems with the firm's management in Norwegian newspapers, Burson-Marsteller began a big campaign trying to show that SINTICEL does not represent Aracruz workers. LO (the biggest confederation of trade unions in Norway) and CUT (Brazilian Confederation of Trade Unions) support SINTICEL's firm position. Source: Winfried Overbeek. CIMI-Leste. July 1997. The pulp and paper industry faces problems in the Amazon The four big pulp and paper projects in the Brazilian Amazon (Companhia Suzano de Papel e Celulose and CELMAR in Maranhao, Jari Celulose in Para, and Champion in Amapa) are facing important problems from the economic, social and environmental points of view. The anarchic character of the pulp and paper industry has resulted in falls in the prices of market pulp. Rural workers denounce illegal work contracts while peasants protest about the expansion of the lands owned by the companies. Champion bought a total of 448,000 hectares in Amapa. Regional governments -as that of Amapa- have denounced that some of the land sales to the companies have been illegal since those were publicly owned. The utilization of agrotoxics in eucalyptus plantations has raised workers' protests. They claim suffering from headache and pains in their eyes and muscles as a consequence of the application of Round-up and DMA and denounce not having received the required health care. Source: Instituto Socioambiental. Parabolicas 30, June 1997 Tupinikim and Guarani: Does the Government respect the law? On August 12th representatives of the Tupinikim and Guarani, the federal deputies Nilton Baiano and Joao Coser and CIMI held an audience with the Executive Secretary of the Ministry of Justice Mr. Jose de Jesus Filho, to claim once again the delimitation of the boundaries of indigenous lands. During the audience, the representative of the Brazilian government asked about the possiblity of an exchange and/or a reduction of the claimed lands, with the aim of not jeopardizing the activities of Aracruz Celulose S.A. (ARCEL) and even questioned about the necessity of the claimed lands. He also expressed that the Ministry had decided to carry out an additional survey within the period of 90 days. Even if such a decision is made possible by Decree 1775/96, the Secretary’s attitude and arguments looked very close to those of ARCEL and raised doubts among the delegation. Is the Government taking into account the report of the Working Grop of FUNAI, that recommended the extension of indigenous territories to 13579 hectares? Is Article 231 of the Federal Constitution -which affirms that "the lands to which this article refers shall be inalienable and unavailable, and the rights to them shall not lapse"- being respected? After the audience, the Executive Commission of the Tupinikim and Guarani decided: to denounce any attempt of the Brazilian government in proposing or implementing measures aimed at the exchange and/or the reduction of indigenous lands, to put pressure on the Government so that it reaffirms the conclusions of the Working Group and to mobilise supporting organizations in the same direction, and to ask customers, shareholders and investors of ARCEL to ask the company to recognise the report of the Working Group of FUNAI and to collaborate in the just demarcation of the land claimed by the indigenous communities. Aracruz: Tupinikim and Guarani demands close to a decision. The Executive Commission of the Tupinikim and Guarani had met in the village of Comboios on 13 September to evaluate the visit of representatives of FUNAI’s Regional Administration (ADR) and FUNAI’s officials on September 9 and 10. The visitors allegated that ADR was not well-informed about the land matter and also that they had some useful information to support the indigenous struggle. Nevertheless, the leaders of the Executive Commission did not believe so. "FUNAI came here, without telling us in advance. They said that the struggle had already been going on for a long time and that it could go on for another 10 years. And if we would win this matter, Aracruz Celulose would go to court. They asked us if it would be better to have land or to get aid for the communities" states Alair, Chief of Comboios. According to Antonino, Chief of Pau Brasil, the members of FUNAI warned them that Aracruz Celulose and the Municipality would stop the aid in case they did not renounce to their demands for land. The same thing happened in other villages, as Caeira Velha, Iraja and Tres Palmeiras. Even if the visitors looked like defending the indigenous rights, they really acted under pressure from Aracruz and wanted to persuade the indigenous to cease their fight. The Chiefs are convinced that the Ministry of Justice planned the visit with the clear intention of convincing them that it would be better to make a deal with Aracruz, just as it happened in 1981. Even though the communities rejected the possibility of an agreement that will reduce their lands, FUNAI delegates said that a representative of Brasilia would visit the communities very soon. FUNAI’s visit to the villages was in fact a kind of preparation for the next step: an invitation from Aracruz Celulose to the indigenous peoples for a meeting which took place on September 19, that was attended by 30 indigenous representatives of all the villages and one CIMI-member. Aracruz wanted the indigenous peoples to approve a study of EMBRAPA (Federal office for Agriculture) in the villages, which should start the following week. This socio-economic study should result in an economic occupation plan based on the present indigenous areas for 4 years, to be presented to the Minister of Justice. The Tupinikim and Guarani understand that this proposal was aimed at challenging the Working Group’s report by presenting an economic plan -financed by Aracruz itself- which certainly should result in a minimal extension or maintenance of the present lands in order to minimise the damage for the company. At the same time FUNAI is responsible for having encouraged Aracruz to present this proposal. The indigenous peoples decision after the discussion in the communities was the following: "We, Tupinikim and Guarani, do not accept that Aracruz Celulose and EMBRAPA enter in our lands to carry out an economic occupation study or plan, because we understand that this is not for our benefit. It will only help to defend the interests of the company and will be used as an argument against our claim. Besides, the study carried out by the Working Group of FUNAI concluded that it is necessary to extend our lands, and the company already has had the opportunity to present its challenges, which were refused because of lack of legal grounds. If EMBRAPA has the intention to help us, we would like them to look for us after the land problem has been resolved. We hope that Aracruz Celulose and EMBRAPA will respect our decision." The indigenous communities are planning a general assembly for November 3, to decide how to put pressure on the Minister so that he decides soon and in favour of their claim. The Tupinikim and Guarani are willing to go to the end in this matter: they want the 13,579 hectares, not less. On October 6, the WRM International Secretariat sent letters to FUNAI, to the Minister of Justice and to Aracruz supporting the indigenous’ demands. Source: CIMI-Leste Tupinikim/Guarani: a reply from Aracruz We received a reply from Aracruz’s Environment and Corporate Quality manager Carlos Alberto Roxo to our letter of 6 October in support of the Tupinikim/Guarani’s right to their lands. Mr Roxo is "pleased to have the opportunity of explaining the company’s position in relation to this matter, which has been deeply misinterpreted by some segments." The letter includes an interesting heading in its annex, which we think contains useful information about the company’s economic interests in this issue. The heading’s title is "The importance of the lands under dispute to Aracruz" and says: "In addition to having the legal right to the lands, Aracruz considers them as very important for the following reasons: - Aracruz’s pulp mill is expanding its production capacity by 20 per cent this year. Since Aracruz uses planted Eucalyptus only (no native wood is used in the process), all the planted trees will be necessary to supply the mill. - The lands under dispute account for 22 per cent of the company’s land in the area of the mill. Since these lands are the closest to the mill, they also provide the cheapest wood (as transportation costs represent a high proportion of the wood costs), which is a key factor for maintaining the company’s international competitiveness. - Aracruz has already invested considerable resources in the development of these lands, through the establishment of plantations of high quality and productivity." Assembly of the Tupinikim and Guarani On November 4 the period of 60 days ended during which FUNAI had to make a restudy, according to a letter of the Minister of Justice dated August 4. Concerning the decision of the Minister, there are three possible options: - to declare the boundaries of the claimed lands and establish its demarcation. In this case Aracruz will go to court, according to declarations of representatives of the company; - to declare the boundaries, but proposing a reduction of the area; - to take no decision. Based on the two audiences which indigenous peoples representatives had at the Ministry of Justice, the Tupinikim and Guarani know that the minister has little willingness to decide in favour of the indigenous claim for an additional 13,579 hectares. Aracruz is interfering strongly at the level of FUNAI and the Ministry of Justice with this aim. During the month of September the indigenous peoples suffered a strong direct pressure from FUNAI and Aracruz Celulose. For these reasons the affected communities are organizing an assembly in order to decide on how to continue the struggle. The First Indigenous Assembly of the Tupinikim and Guarani is to take place on December 8. The assembly will also be attended by allies -among them the WRM- and representatives of indigenous organisations of other parts of the country, as well as authorities such as the Minister of Justice, the President of FUNAI and the State Governor. Source: Leonardo da Silva Goncalves and Antonio Carlos Pinto dos Santos, Preparatory Commission of the Assembly. Sent by CIMI-Leste Indigenous Assembly of Tupinikim and Guarani The 1st Indigenous Assembly of the Tupinikim and Guarani took place in December 8th at the Community Center of Coqueiral in Aracruz. The organizers consider that the event was a success. There were about 200 indigenous people participating (160 Tupinikim and 40 Guarani) of all the six villages. Most important authorities were the vice-governor of Espirito Santo, the secretary of justice of Espirito Santo and the attorney general of Espirito Santo. Two other regional indigenous movements -APOINME and the Council of Indigenous Peoples of Minas Gerais- also sent representatives. There were 3 state members of parliament present and a large number of social organisations including the Church and the workers’ union SINTICEL. Notorious abscences were that of the Minister of Justice and of the President of FUNAI. They did not send a representative either. This fact was strongly denounced by the assembly. The indigenous peoples decided to make a statement of support to SINTICEL, since the whole directory of the trade union has been sent to court by Aracruz Celulose, because they showed their indignation with measures by the company to cut in health benefits of the workers. SINTICEL is seeking for support in this struggle by asking activists to contact trade unions in all countries to write to Aracruz Celulose expressing their disagreement with its attitude. The assembly stressed that nowadays in Brazil, indigenous peoples will only succeed in guaranteeing their rights if they struggle, and if they take their own decisions. Source: Winfried Overbeek, CIMI-Leste, November 10 1997. Document of the 1st Indigenous Assembly of the Tupinikim and Guarani. By way of this document we want to bring to the attention of the Minister of Justice, Iris Resende, the documents no. 08620.1352/97-74 and no. 08620.1353/97-10, which refer to the unification of the indigenous lands Caieiras Velhas and Pau Brasil, and the extension of the indigenous land Comboios. The extension in total of our lands will be more than 13,579 hectares. The Federal Government has already complied with two phases of the administrative procedure for the demarcation of our lands. It realised the identification of the area and has analysed the contestations presented by Aracruz Celulose. Soon afterwards the documents were sent to the Minister of Justice to comply with the third phase: the signature of the decree for the delimitation, declaring the boundaries and determining the demarcation of our lands. In the act of the Minister of Justice, dated 4 August 1997, the Minister recognized that we have the legitimate right of permanent ownership to the lands that we have traditionally occupied and he rejected Aracruz Celulose's contestations, because they lacked legal basis. At the same time, he asked FUNAI to do an additional study. This request has already been attended by the Working Group GT 0783/94 of FUNAI within the legal period of 90 days. This means that since 4 November 1997 we have been waiting of the Minister’s final decision, in other words the signature of the decree for the delimitation of our lands. We want to emphasize the importance of our struggle, because our needs are great. We cannot wait for much longer, for we have been fighting for four years and we still have not received a decision. First, our struggle is just and supported by the Federal Constitution, which states in Article 231: "The social organisation, customs, languages, beliefs and traditions of the Indians shall be recognised, as well as their native rights to the lands traditionally occupied by them. The Union shall be required to demarcate that land, to protect it, and to make others respect the property of the Indians." Second, it is necessary for us to get back our lands, for the land we occupy at the moment is not sufficient to grow enough crops. As well we not have space for the new families in the villages nor can we offer our displaced Indian brothers a place to live. We want more land so that we can live in liberty, according to our culture and tradition. Third, we are not only worried about the teenagers, adults and elderly of the villages, but we are also thinking of the future of our children. If we continue to live on the little land we have, where are they going to live? We also want to reforest our land so that they will have better living conditions. The reason why we have this problem at this moment, is because the Brazilian Government allowed Aracruz Celulose to invade our lands. Now we want the Government to correct this mistake and to give back the lands we are claiming. We want justice to be done, because at this moment Aracruz Celulose has the use of our lands without a legal basis. Whereas we the Indians have the support of the laws, but we do not have the ownership of the lands. We know that the Minister of Justice does not have a time set when he will hand down his decision. However, we cannot wait any longer because all of this does not make sense. We are absolutely convinced that the moment for a final decision has come. All the necessary studies have been done, the arguments are clear, precise and legitimate. We are also very worried about the fact that Aracruz Celulose is using all its power and influence to pressure the Brazilian Government. Because of all these reasons, we the Tupinikim and Guarani, gathered at the 1st Indigenous Assembly, urgently request the Minister of Justice to sign the decree for the delimitation of our lands. We are willing to wait for an answer until 20 January 1998. After that date we will take all the necessary measures to guarantee our rights. We are sure of our rights, and we hope that the Minister of Justice will take a decision soon that will take into account our claims and we hope that our friends and supporters will continue to help us in this struggle. Coqueiral (ES), 8 December 1997 This document is signed, on behalf of the Tupinikim and Guarani communities, by their chiefs: Village of Caeira Velha: Jose Sizenando,
Tupinikim Tupinikim and Guarani lands: Imminent decision The difficult process related to the definitive recognition ot the indigenous territorial rights in Aracruz seems to come to an end. The President of FUNAI, Mr. Sulivan Silvestre Oliveira -responding to pressure from Aracruz Cellulose- has continued trying to delay a final decision on land demarcation. On January 8th, a new Working Group (WG) was sent to the indigenous communities in order to carry out yet another study, because according to him the previous re-study was insufficient. The indigenous peoples did not accept this new WG, that they considered useless, because it could add nothing to the studies already carried out and was a mere way to delay the whole procedure for at least another six months. As a result of this firm opposition the President of FUNAI sent on January 15th the documentation to the Minister of Justice, confirming the last study of FUNAI in favour of granting the claimed 13,579 hectares to the Tupinikim and Guarani. But only one week later a delegation of FUNAI, headed by Mr. Oliveira visited the Tupinikim. He threatened them that he would set in motion all possible repressive instruments to impede the demarcation action of the indigenous people after January 30th. The President of FUNAI and other government officials resorted to a very strong pressure, combined with an authoritarian attitude in their conversation with the indigenous leaders, and forced them to take a decision at the end of the meeting, instead of consulting their communities like some leaders suggested. He also offended CIMI people and threatened to get them arrested. The authorities looked very much worried for the support that the Movement of Farmers Without Land (Movimento dos Sem Terra) has expressed to the indigenous struggle. The chiefs and leaders of the Tupinikim and Guarani villages that attended the meeting with the governmental authorities issued a statement which says: "We, Tupinikim and Guarani, reaffirm that if the Minister of Justice does not sign the decree which will order the demarcation of our lands by the 24th of February, we will implement the self-demarcation of our lands, and we expect that the President of FUNAI will comply with the commitment which he assumed in the presence of the Executive Commission of the Tupinikim and Guarani and will support us and give us protection". On March 2nd. a meeting between Mr. Iris Rezende, Minister of Juctice, and a delegation of the Tupinikim and Guarani will take place. It is expected that this will be the last event before a final decision about their land claim is taken. Source: CIMI. Tension and uncertainty in Espirito Santo On March 6th the Brazilian Ministry of Justice finally decided to demarcate only 2,571 additional hectares for the Tupinikim and Guarani. The argumentation of the Ministry denies all the studies done uptil now by FUNAI which arguments the necessity of extending and demarcating 13,579 hectares, as requested by the indigenous peoples. This decision is exactly the same proposal that Aracruz Celulose put forward to the indigenous peoples in a meeting on February 18th, which clearly shows that the authorities acted defending the interests of the company. The Commission of the Tupinikim and Guarani declared that they rejected this decision and announced immediate actions to resist it. In effect, early in the morning of March 11th around 300 Tupinikim and Guarani people entered the eucalyptus plantations of Aracruz Celulose and started demarcating the 13,579 hectares which they have been claiming for the last 4 years. They were acompanied by several hundred supporters, including around 160 people belonging to the "Movimento dos Sem Terra" (MST - Brazilian landless peasants’ organization), different trade unions headed by the regional president of the "Central Unica de Trabalhadores" (National trade union), three members of Parliament from the State of Espirito Santo, leaders of the state's "Partido dos Trabalhadores" (Workers’ Party), representatives from the Church, human rights organizations, etc. Regional, national and Norwegian media were also present. In between the cutting of the eucalyptus, the Tupinikim and Guarani gave encouragement to the action with traditional dances and songs. At the beginning no police force was ordered to disrupt the demarcation. FUNAI representatives came to the scene, trying to make the indigenous peoples stop the action, offering them negotiations with Aracruz Celulose instead, which they firmly rejected. The company has also refused to accept the decision of the Minister of Justice, taking it to court. They challenge the Ministry’s argumentation that the indigenous peoples have traditional rights to get back the land. Aracruz Celulose succeeded to get a decision of the judge in its favour. The first is to get its areas protected against "invaders". And the other case is to get the MST -which is supporting the indigenous peoples' struggle- out of the area, as well as other supporting people and organizations. The company also proposed to the indigenous authorities that if both parties accept the decision of the Ministry and land demarcation is stopped, Aracruz will fund an "assistance programme" for 10 years to prevent land problems with them in the future. Naturally the indigenous peoples do not trust this proposal and answered that they were willing to sit with Aracruz but at the same time they wanted to continue demarcation. As a way to intimidate the action to recover the indigenous lands, some days later the Federal Police detained and submitted to long interviews several persons who are supporting the struggle of the indigenous peoples. The most serious case until this moment is the decision to expel from Brazil the missionary of CIMI, Winfried Overbeek, without any serious accusation. Source: CIMI March 1998 A dictatorship-type action gives Aracruz a spurious victory Last 18th of March the Brazilian Government launched a military operation -similar to the actions against the indigenous peoples undertaken during the dictatorship period- seeking to put a definitive end to the struggle of the Tupinikim and Guarani for the demarcation of their traditional lands. Clearly the aim of the authorities’ action was to create the necessary conditions for the indigenous peoples to be forced to accept the imposition of Aracruz Cellulose. The roads giving access to the indigenous villages were occupied by armed members of the Federal Police. Every contact between the villagers and the organizations that had been supporting their struggle was then interrupted. Leaders from CUT (Central Unica dos Trabalhadores - Central Workers Union), that had participated in the demarcation initiated on March 6th, were arrested and treated like criminals. Similarly members of the Movimento dos Sem Terra (Landless Peasants Movement), who had also supported the indigenous action, were removed by force from the villages. The Dutch missionary of CIMI Winfried Overbeek was arbitrarily arrested by the Federal police and threatened to be expelled from the country. The negotiations between the Government, the indigenous leaders and Aracruz Celulose took place in Brasilia. During this whole period, the indigenous representatives were kept isolated and impeded to establish contact with any person or organization that could give support and advise to them. Finally, on April 2nd., the Tupinikim and Guarani leaders signed an agreement called "Term of Adjustment of Conduct" valid for a period of 20 years. According to it, the indigenous peoples "accept" to exchange the limits of their traditional lands -occupied by Aracruz Celulose- for financial assistance provided by that corporation. The President of FUNAI and representatives of the Federal Public Prosecution Service also signed the agreement. The presence of the armed police was maintained until April 8th in order to guarantee that this agreement would get the approval of the indigenous communities. A decree of FUNAI (Dec. nr. 268/98) forbade the indigenous peoples to receive in their own lands representatives of the organizations that had been in close contact with them for many years. The intention of the Brazilian authorities to expel Winfried Overbeek from the country was neutralized by a judicial decision that accepted an Habeas Corpus appeal presented by CIMI. Nevertheless the Federal Police initiated an inquiry against him under the accusation of "practising political activities, or interfering directly or indirectly in the public affairs of Brazil". In case he is declared guilty, the punishment can vary from one to three years of detention. Fabio Vilas, also a member of the CIMI team, was denounced for inciting the Tupinikim and Guarani to commit crime, in the case of the "illegal" self-demarcation action. In the meantime Aracruz Celulose is celebrating the agreement. During a visit to Comboios (the only village which did not participate in the demarcation action and signed a separate agreement) on April 19th to celebrate the National Day of the Indian, the President of the Company, Mr. Lorentzen, announced that the originally stipulated U$S 500,000 that during 20 years Aracruz would give to the village were raised to U$S 2,000,000. Money seems not to be a problem for the Company. At the same time the claim of Comboios for 1,300 additional hectares was not accepted and only 121 hectares were awarded to them instead. Nevertheless, other people do not find reasons for celebrating. At a meeting held in the village of Caieiras Velhas to commemorate the National Day of the Indian, representatives of other four villages as well as members of Parliament, academic institutions, trade union leaders and CIMI, denounced the Brazilian Government and FUNAI for their attitude regarding the conflict. Many people of the communities showed their disatisfaction with the agreement. Internal conflicts have emerged in relation to the money offered by Aracruz as well. As a consequence of the above named decree of FUNAI -that literally isolated the Tupinikim and Guarani villages- the education project undertaken by CIMI and other three NGOs was interrupted. In a declaration dated April 20th. CIMI states: "1. Considers the ‘agreement’ SCANDALOUS and IMMORAL. It was obtained by means which offend seriously the fundamental rights and liberties guranteed in the Federal Constitution valid for any individual -including the Indians. Also, it is extremely harmful to the rights and interests of the mentioned indigenous communities and to their physical and socio-cultural integrity. Finally, it is flagrantly UNCONSTITUTIONAL by violating Art. 231, par.4, of the same Constitution which orders that indigenous lands are ‘NOT TRANSFERRABLE’ and ‘UNAVAILABLE’, and therefore NOT NEGOTIABLE. 2. Rejects vehemently the role of the President of FUNAI in the whole episode, since who has the legal duty to protect and make respect the indigenous rights never could have assumed a supposedly impartial posture and much less participated in the pressures on those whose rights he should defend. 3. Denounces the anti-indigenist policy of the Federal Government, which prefers to hit the Constitution in its sacred rights which recognise the demarcation of lands traditionally occupied by indigenous peoples, benefitting the interests of a multinational company which invaded these mentioned lands. 4. Clamours, for the benefit of the public interest and a state which respects democracy and civil rights, for the immediate repeal of the decrees nrs. 253 and 268/98, which forbid the entrance of non-governmental organizations in the indigenous lands Tupinikim and Guarani in Espirito Santo 5. Elevates the gestures of solidarity that the Indians received from so many parts of the land and from abroad, especially from the society of Espirito Santo which always has been in favour of the Indians struggle. It is worth emphasizing that the support and solidarity of the MST, CUT, the Workers Party, Human Rights organizations and other organizations of the state of Espirito Santo, obtained special importance during the self-demarcation promoted by the Tupinikim and Guarani. At the same time, CIMI rejects the usage of legislation to impede the fundamental right of showing solidarity. 6. Wants to show all its solidarity with the Tupinikim and Guarani communities, victims of so much pressure, and reaffirms its uncompromising support to their struggle for a real solution of the problem, that is to say, the demarcation of the 13,579 hectares, untransferrable and essential right which no agreement can undo." Brasilia-DF, 20th April 1998" CIMI has started an evaluation process about this serious problem. Supporting organizations of the land struggle are asked to keep mobilised and to think of a future strategy. The WRM will continue coordinating actions with CIMI and the Brazilian organizations that have been supporting the Tupinikim and Guarani struggle. We strongly condemn the agreement, which is the result of the open alliance between the Brazilian authorities and Aracruz Cellulose. We consider that the Tupinikim and Guarani were in fact forced to enter a no way out situation and compelled to renounce to their legitimate claims. Source: CIMI, April 1998. The paradigmatic case of Aracruz Up to the decade of the ‘50s the Brazilian government provided subsidies for the import of pulp. With the military government, beginning in 1964, a forestry policy was set up trying to promote tree plantations and large export-oriented pulp companies by means of subsidies and loans. Eucalyptus for pulp is grown in Brazil with rotation periods of only 7 or even 5 to 6 years. Nowadays there are more than 250 pulp and paper companies all over the country, with a total planted area of about 3 million hectares of eucalyptus. According to estimates, the total area of tree plantations reaches 7 million hectares, 30% of which are for pulp and paper production. Its main objective is the international market and 90% of pulp exports are concentrated in 5 major companies, mostly integrated with foreign capital: Aracruz Cellulose in Espirito Santo, CENIBRA, Bahia Sul Cellulose, Riocell and Monte Dourado in northern Brazil. The present total planted area of these companies comprises 350.000 hectares, but new projects are under way. The tendency of the companies is to expand more and more and to establish alliances in order to maintain their competitiveness in the world market. Being land availability a crucial issue in this strategy, companies forcefully extend their land holdings. Some people gain and some others lose with plantations. Pulp companies, which receive strong support from the government, are obviously the main winners. Consulting companies for the modernization of mills and plantations, as well as a restricted number of industrial workers have also profitted of this process. In front of these few winners, there are many losers; as a matter of fact, most of the Brazilian people. The case of Aracruz Cellulose is paradigmatic of the social and environmental impacts produced by a plantation and pulp production megacompany that acts under a "green cover". Being the biggest producer of bleached eucalyptus pulp in the world, it earned 3 billion dollars between 1989 and 1995. Due to tax breaks, Aracruz saves anually U$S 88 million at the expense of the state government of Espirito Santo. Water supply problems originated in the region are similar to those reported in other parts of the world. Water analysis performed at the laboratories of the company are not reliable and agrochemicals are producing a negative environmental impact on waters. The area chosen by Aracruz to establish its plantations and pulp mill was not empty; it was part of the Tupinikim indigenous peoples' ancestral lands. The Tupinikim already occupied a vast territory -currently part of the states of Sao Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Espirito Santo, Minas Gerais and Bahia- when the Portuguese arrived in the sixteenth century. The presence of the Tupinikim in the area was also recorded in reports of 1912 and 1919 by the Indian Protection Service. Since 1934 the Brazilian Constitution guarantees the rights of indigenous peoples to the possesion of their traditional lands, which cannot be handed over to third parties. In 1967 -the same year when Aracruz began its operations in the area- a group of Guarani joined their Tupinikim brothers and sisters and stayed there, considering it "the land without evil". Aracruz Cellulose chose to ignore history as well as the Brazilian Constitution when in 1967 it began to occupy the indigenous lands, advocating that it was a degraded and empty territory. A long struggle began since then. Due to the expansion of eucalyptus plantations following deforestation by Aracruz Cellulose, the indigenous peoples have been forced to abandon part of their ancestral territories. They claimed during four years for a further 13,579 hectares, situated next to their present reserves. In March 1998 the Brazilian Ministry of Justice decided to demarcate only 2,571 additional hectares for the Tupinikim and Guarani, ignoring all the studies previously done by FUNAI, which supported the indigenous peoples' claims. "Coincidentally", this was the same proposal that Aracruz Cellulose had put forward in February 1998. It is thus clear that the authorities acted defending the interests of the company. The indigenous people, supported by social and human rights organizations, reacted against the judicial decision and began the demarcation of their lands by themselves. But they and their supporters were intimidated and repressed by the military and the police, in an action similar to those common during the dictatorship period. Driven to a no way out situation, they were forced to accept an "agreement" according to which they exchange the limits of their traditional lands -occupied by Aracruz Cellulose- for a 20-year financial assistance. Concern for the consequences of such an agreement is growing. For the time being, Aracruz seems to have eliminated one of its main problems. However, in the long run this may become a boomerang, because all the efforts that the company has invested in creating an image of a socially and environmentally responsible corporation may have been thrown down the drains through this dictatorial-type of forced agreement. Aracruz: some polite suggestions from a forester We received the following message from Brazilian forester Jackson Roberto Eleoterio (from the University of Sao Paulo), which we can't but share with our readers: Why doesn't your "organization" mind your own business instead of mixing yourselves with the confusion created by indian delinquents incited by a bunch of unemployed leftists, who only wish to embarrass a productive enterprise such as ARACRUZ, which is thereby forced to make concessions to avoid an international scandal. The situation is that the indians destroy the fertility of their land, which has already been demarcated, and want new lands, preferably with all the infrastructure in place. Original version in Portuguese Por que a "organizacao" de voces nao cuida de seus proprios problemas e vem se meter nas confusoes criadas por indios deliquentes incitados por um bando de desocupados da esquerda, que soh querem atrapalhar uma empresa produtiva como a ARACRUZ e que assim eh obrigada a ceder, senao formaria-se um escandalo internacional. A situacao eh que os indios destroem a fertilidade de sua terra, jah demercada e querem novas terras, de preferencia com toda a infra-estrutura. "We want orchards, not eucalyptus plantations" After a long struggle started in 1995, Brazilian NGOs and peasant organizations, with support from representatives of the Catholic church, succeeded in halting a megaproject of eucalyptus plantation in the state of Amapa in northern Brazil. The plan of Champion Paper and Cellulose. and its subsidiary Chamflora Amapa Agroflorestal Ltda to set up 100,000 hectares of eucalyptus, would have affected the lands and livelihoods of the peasants of the region. Local people joined in the Organized Civil Society Forum (Forum da Sociedade Civil Organizada), which, with the support of the Pastoral Commission for Land (Comissao Pastoral da Terra) carried out a complete study to demonstrate that the company had illegally occupied the peasants’ lands. They had to face a powerful opponent, with much influence on the media and specialised in showing a "green image". In spite of that, they managed to stop both the first project based on eucalyptus and a second one, started in 1996, when Champion bought AMCEL (Amapa Celulose), a company installed in Amapa since 1974, and whose pine plantations occupy 93,000 hectares. In 1998 Champion had to recognize the irregularities commited during the purchase and occupation of lands: some 140,000 hectares had to be given back to their legitimate owners, the peasants of Amapa. This victory is celebrated every July 25 --Rural Workers Day-- by peasant organizations, whose slogan is : "We want orchards, not eucalyptus plantations." Nevertheless, globalization of the economy implies new threats for the Brazilian people. Since the international cellulose and paper markets have been affected by the Asian crisis and environmental pressures to stop the exploitation of forests in Southern Asia are increasing, projects to produce nearly 10 million tonnes of those products were abandoned in that region, and part of them could be transferred to Brazil. One example is the association between two of the largest paper producers in the world (Stora from Sweden and ENSO from Finland), with the Odebrecht Group in Brazil, to invest 1.6 billion dollars in a cellulose plant in the state of Bahia. Another example is the association between the US Kimberly-Clark and the Brazilian Klabin Group, to invest in Brazil and Argentina. Chilean paper producers are also interested in investing in Brazil. One of them has already purchased a factory in Santa Catarina. The Celmar project, which includes the recently privatized Rio Doce Valley Company, involves a possible association with several international companies to produce cellulose in the state of Maranhao. The Rio Doce Valley is negotiating an association between giant pulp producers CENIBRA and Bahia Sul, seeking more profitability and more competitive prices on the international market. Sources: Sandro Gallazzi (CPT-Amapa) and Rosa Roldan (IBASE), September 1998 Response to article published in 'Aracruz News' By means of this letter, we would like to comment the article of Mr. Julio Cesar Centeno, published in the October edition of 'Aracruz News', bulletin of the pulp and eucalyptus plantation company Aracruz Celulose. In his article, Mr Centeno praises the eucalyptus plantations at Aracruz Celulose because of their "capacity to have a significant impact on local and national economies". Although the author admits that plantations have both positive and negative implications, he merely considers the positive implications, clearly supporting the interests of Aracruz Celulose in promoting its tarnished image. Unfortunately, in spite of the 'objective' tone of his article, Mr. Centeno is one more of the group of so-called 'specialists', that plantation companies need to justify their activities and to cover the well-known negative impacts that their plantations have on local people and environment. We would like to make some remarks: - It should really be a principle, as Mr. Centeno suggests, that "plantations should not involve the replacement of the natural tree cover on a particular site". However, Aracruz Celulose cleared extensive areas of native forests to implement its eucalyptus plantations, as has been proven by aerial photographs and local testimonies, and causing a disaster for local biodiversity. - The author states that 'plantations can significantly improve the livelihoods of surrounding populations'. However, the more Aracruz company occupied intensively the geographical space, the more it contributed to the loss of structure in the socially, culturally and economically valid forms of production, organisation and land use, especially of the Tupinikim and Guarani indigenous communities. - For sure 'plantations of eucalyptus must carefully match water demand to availability', because in the Aracruz case the water levels of the streams and brooks in the few native forest which was left, have dropped, often resulting in the complete disappearance of these streams, which anyone can check in the region, just asking elder Tupinikim and Guarani Indians to show these places. - Finally, if what Mr Centeno means by 'significant impact' of Aracruz on the local and national economy is that it had had a significant negative impact, then such assertion is especially true, for instance in the number of people employed by the company, which dropped from 7.400 in 1990 to around 2.000 at present (in spite of the continuous growth of the company), having severe consequences for the local economy. Inversely, it must be stressed that the national economy has had a strong positive impact on Aracruz, which has received all sorts of economic support from the Brazilian state since it began its operations and is even exempted from most taxes because its production is export-oriented. Conselho Indigenista Missionario-Espirito Santo Monoculture tree plantations promoted in the Andes As in a number of other countries, the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) is now promoting the development of pulpwood plantations in Colombia. The bank has recently approved a "non-reimbursable" loan of 2 million dollars --through the Multilateral Investment Fund-- to support the creation of a Training and Technological Development Centre for the Pulp, Paper and Cardboard Industry (CENPAPEL). According to journalistic reports, the objective of this centre is to find alternatives for pulp production in view of the depletion of appropriate and abundant pulpwood resources from native forests. It will be located in Pereira, home of the country's two main paper companies (Papeles Nacionales and Colpapel). The project had been presented four years ago to the IDB by a group of entrepreneurs from Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela and Peru and receives support from Pereira's local government and from the Risaralda government. Additionally, the Organization of American States will also provide financial support to the project and had previously paved the way for the participation of foreign companies, establishing contact with 25 such firms, of which six are already participating. Given that the stated aim of this project is to find alternative raw material for the pulp industry, it is no secret to local populations that this will mean the establishment of large-scale eucalyptus and pine plantations in the region. In such situation, local environmentalists are organizing a regional meeting to support local peasants, based on the analysis of the impacts that commercial pine and eucalyptus crops will have on the Andean biodiversity and on soils and water. Source: Margarita Florez, ILSA, Colombia Community opposes pulp mill project The fishing community of Mehuin in the 10th Region of Chile is opposing the project of Celulosa Arauco y Constitucion S.A. (CELCO) -a huge pulp and paper company- to build a pulp mill coupled with a pipeline that would discharge toxic pollutants resulting from the production process in the bay where they live. More than 600 lts. of effluents a second would be poured into the waters, causing severe environmental effects on the population of fish that is the livelihhood of this community, and on their own health. The community of Mehuin has firmly stated that it even opposes the realization of an Environmental Impact Assessment and so has the Mapuche community, according to which those lands are protected by the Indigenous Law. This shows the growing discredit of environmental assessments carried out by consultants -usually paid by the company- whose findings are almost always basically favourable to megaprojects and only include "mitigation" measures. In this case, people are simply against the whole idea and that is the reason for the opposition to the EIA. Nevertheless the provincial Government considers the project essential for the "development" of the region, severely affected by unemployment and is strongly in favour of its implementation. The megaproject undertaken by CELCO is expected to produce 550,000 tons of cellulose annualy, consuming 2,240,000 cubic meters of pine and 563,000 cubic meters of eucalyptus every year. This would mean a further increase in the plantation area in Chile, that is increasingly perceived as a big problem by the peasants. Source: Observatorio Latinoamericano de
Conflictos Ambientales, RENACE, Native forests cleared for plantations One of the more widely publicized arguments for the promotion of industrial tree plantations says that fast growing plantations help to alleviate the main pressures on native forests and consequently help to preserve them. This argument was been proven false in all cases and Chile is no exception. According to the local NGO CODEFF, the substitution of native forest by fast growth exotic plantations constitutes -within the process of destruction of native forests- one of the most important factors. A recent study carried out by the government agency CONAF shows that annual deforestation during the 1985-1994 period reached an annual average of 36,700 hectares and that almost 40% of such area was deforested to make way to industrial tree plantations. CODEFF itself carried out a survey in the VIII region (which concentrates the majority of tree plantations), which revealed that from 1978 to 1987 almost 30% of the forests of the Coastal Andes were clearcut and substituted with radiata pine plantations. Such destruction is the result of a number of pressures, both from within and outside Chile. However, the more obvious cause can be traced within the government, which since 1974 has been heavily subsidizing this type of plantations. Many forestry firms decide -legally in some cases and illegally in many more- to clearcut the existing forest and replant it with pines or eucalyptus in order to have access to government subisidies. Source: Bosques Templados 6 (6) 1998 An unsustainable forestry model Forests cover about 30 million hectares in Chile while plantations occupy 2,1 million hectares. Chilean forests -with more than 100 native species- are one of the most biodiversity-rich temperate forests in the world. In marked contrast, 80% of the plantations are composed by radiata pine and 12% by eucalyptus monocultures. The Chilean forestry model -based upon plantations in spite of the vast and rich forests existing in the country- has been trumpeted as an example for developing countries and one of the factors of the Chilean economic boom. Such model is being promoted in different countries, from Uruguay to Mozambique. Albeit its negative side is not publicized. The promotion of vast monocultures in Chile began with the military dictatorship in the ‘70s. In line with the imposed economic model, subsidies and tax breaks benefitted a few powerful economic groups. Nowadays only two groups -Angelini and Matte- own respectively 470,000 hectares and 340,000 hectares of plantations, involving more than 50 forestry companies in Chile as well as in Argentina, Paraguay and Peru. In the meantime, peasants are expelled from their lands, progressively occupied by plantations or affected by their effects on water and biodiversity. Recent independent studies have revealed that plantations have not helped to alleviate poverty in rural areas and local communities oppose them. One of the more publicized arguments for the promotion of industrial tree plantations says that fast growing plantations help to alleviate the main pressures on native forests and consequently help to preserve them. This argument has been proved false in Chile. The annual deforestation during the 1985-1994 period reached an annual average of 36,700 hectares, 40% of which were deforested to make way to industrial tree plantations. In the southern VII region -which concentrates the majority of tree plantations- from 1978 to 1987 30% of the Coastal Andean forests were clearcut and substituted by radiata pine plantations. The pulp industry -closely associated to the plantation scheme- is a relevant polluting factor. Five of the six pulp industries existing in Chile cause strong negative impacts on the environment, while only one is adopting a less harmful production process. The fishing community of Mehuin in the X Region, for example, is opposing the project of Celulosa Arauco y Constitucion S.A. (CELCO) -a huge pulp and paper company- to build a pulp mill coupled with a pipeline that would discharge toxic pollutants resulting from the production process in the bay where they live, affecting the population of fish that is the livelihhood of this community, and their own health. Some of the main consequences of tree monocultures in Chile have been the destruction of native forests, a decrease in water yields, loss of biodiversity and livelihoods of local communities, rural-urban migration, soil erosion and industrial pollution on the one hand and in the concentration of land and wealth on the other. Obviously not a model which can be described as either socially or environmentally sustainable. MexicoThe beginning of the plantations' invasion Acting under pressure from international forestry companies and funding agencies, the Mexican Government is trying to modify the Forestry Law in order to promote large monoculture tree plantations in several regions of the country. As surprising as it may seem, one of these regions is Chiapas -one of the poorest states of Mexico- which has been the scene of a major armed uprising by the Zapatista movement. In June 1995 Edward Krobacker, from International Paper, a company interested in establishing industrial tree plantations in the state of Chiapas, sent a letter to the Mexican Government, pushing for changes to the national forestry law in order to "create a more secure legal framework" for IP's investments. Two years later, this seems to have been wholly accepted, and the Council of Ministers has presented a project to Parliament, which provides enormous facilities for foreign investment in the Mexican forestry sector, among which a subsidy of 65% of the plantation costs. Other regions targetted by the planned industrial tree monocultures are Veracruz and Oaxaca. In the former, a vast eucalyptus plantation plan is being implemented by Temple Island and Simpson -both American companies- while in the latter, pine plantations are been promoted. The aim of such plantations is the production of pulp and paper and lumber. Not only such kind of "forestry development" is a menace for the ecological sustainability of the territory, but also ignores indigenous and rural communities' rights, since their lands will be occupied by plantations. As Jaime Aviles, journalist from "La Jornada", wrote in May 1st. 1997: "Without the agreements (between the Zapatista National Liberation Army -EZLN- and the Government), disorder will manifest itself in many ways; even if Mr. Krobacker gets his forestry law, nobody can guarantee that it will be applied. The plantations will be invaded, sooner or later, and will be the source of many conflicts... The areas selected for the eucalyptus plantations are simply condemned to desertification". The "Mexican version" of pulpwood plantations The increased activities of the "maquiladora" industry (installed within Mexico and based on imported inputs and external export markets), have resulted in an enormous deficit in packaging papers --which are currently being imported from the US and Canada-- used in the necessary packaging of the industrial goods for the supply of external markets. Responding to pressures from the country's industrial sector, the Mexican government is now paving the way for the promotion of large scale pulpwood plantations to provide industry with raw material to produce cheap pulp and paper to fill in that gap. The adopted strategy has three components: 1) to introduce changes to the legal framework; 2) to profit from the "comparative advantages" of Mexico for producing cheap pulpwood; 3) to promote plantations through direct and indirect subsidies. The first component was already implemented in April 1997, with the passing of the Forestry Law, which was approved after strong lobbying from high ranking federal officials, parliamentarians linked to the national paper industry and the active participation of International Paper's CEO. This new law provides plantations with a clear legal framework, including the right of association with the peasants who own the land. As a result of pressures from peasant, environmental and civil organizations --and to a lesser extent from political parties-- plantations are not allowed to be established in forested areas and some conditions are established for large-scale plantations, including management plans and impact assessments. The second component has also been addressed by the federal government, though the Environment Agency (SEMARNAP), which has incorporated the proposals of the national and transnational companies as if being its own. Its implementation has consisted of a discourse to convince the public about the alleged advantages for the country of tree plantations subsidised by public resources, cheap labour with no rights, and with the lack of requirements concerning social and environmental impacts. Not surprisingly, one of the most active high-ranking officials promoting this strategy is a former employee of one of the large paper transnationals. As much of this propaganda has not convinced the majority of the Mexican people --particularly the peasants-- the plantation proponents have established new alliances and created a "National Committee from Tree to Book". The third component is half way through. The Environment Agency has created a "Support Programme for the Development of Commercial Forestry Plantations". Under this programme, plantations will receive subsidies covering 65% of the plantation and management costs for up to seven years, and will also be exempted from taxes. However, there are still some problem areas. The first is that the distribution of resources wasn't as easy as imagined and some companies were left out. Another issue, linked to the drop in oil prices and oil revenues, is that the tax holiday will still need some time to be implemented, as well as some additional subsidies which were expected to be in place. Additionally, a new and unexpected problem has arisen: now other forest-based enterprises and peasant organizations are demanding subsidies to assist them in taking care of the forest, so as to be kept in line with state support to the plantation sector. In sum, the Mexican version of plantations holds nothing new. Its aim is to integrate the transnational productive process, to subordinate the environmental policy to the needs of the transnational demand of the export-oriented industrial capital and to ignore the rights of indigenous peoples and peasants and their environmental culture. The new logic has imposed itself as a result of the official abandonment of other people-based alternatives. However, the above is only part of reality. Peasant and indigenous peoples' reactions are surfacing, such as in the case of the recent massive action of peasants from the state of Guerrero against the US wood and paper company Boise Cascade or the complaints of Tabasco peasants against the unfair contracts of the plantation companies. These are also part of reality. Source: Alejandro Villamar.- Datos de la "version mexicana" de la estrategia global de la industria maderera-papelera internacional bajo el TLCAN, April 1998. Forestry model in Uruguay under siege Concern for the environmental consequences of the forestry schemes applied in Uruguay is growing all over the country. The planned installation of a pulp and paper mill in the small city of Fray Bentos, on the River Uruguay coast, has raised a wave of protest. This fact is impressive since the unemployment rate in that city is particularly high. WRM is active on both issues (plantations and the pulp and paper mill) and has facilitated the creation of a coalition of NGOs aimed at raising awareness and organizing opposition against the model. The coalition adopted the name of "Guayubira" (Patagonula americana), an almost extinct native tree of northern Uruguay. The coalition is becoming very active in different areas of the country and is also beginning to lobby parliamentarians to introduce changes to the current forestry legislation and to eliminate subsidies to plantations. Anti-pulpwood plantation movement on the rise The situation in Uruguay, where Parliament unanimously passed a forestry law in 1987 to promote industrial tree plantations with almost no opposition from civil society organizations, has radically changed since then. In spite of almost total governmental and academic support to eucalyptus and pine tree plantations, NGO-led opposition has totally changed the scenario. The WRM secretariat facilitated the creation of an NGO coalition (the Guayubira Group), which has since been at the centre of a number of anti-plantation and anti pulp mill activities. The Guayubira Group actively supported a local struggle in the densely planted area of Rio Negro against the installation of a pulp mill near the city of Fray Bentos, which has resulted in the detention of a process which seemed to be impossible to halt. The increasing requirements over environmental controls -mostly resulting from organized public pressure- have apparently made the company desist to build the projected pulp mill. In the forestry area, the exponential increase of plantations (from some 2,000 annual hectares in the early 1980s to more than 50,000 hectares annually at present), the increased presence of multinationals and foreign capitals investing in plantations and the impacts that such plantations are now having on society and the environment, have resulted in an increasing -though largely uncoordinated- opposition front, including NGOs, trade unions, parliamentarians, cattle-ranchers, farmers, local people and concerned individuals. This has recently led to contradictions within the government itself, where the pro-plantation lobby is losing ground. A few days ago, the Minister of the Environment declared in the state-owned television channel that plantations seem to be having a strong negative impact on soils and water and that his ministry will present an initiative to Parliament to remove all subsidies currently being provided to the plantation industry. An important, though yet insufficient step forward. Increasing conflict with Jefferson Smurfit Smurfit Cartons Venezuela --a subsidiary of the Dublin-based transnational Jefferson Smurfit-- has been operating in Venezuela's Portuguesa state since 1986. Its extensive pulpwood plantations for the production of paperboard have resulted in equally extensive social and environmental problems. This situation has been analysed by the Venezuelan Senate's Environment Commission, which has recently produced a 120-page report documenting such impacts. We have been informed about some of those impacts, which include human rights violations, dispossessment of local peoples' lands, corruption, disregard towards national legislation, substitution of riverine forests by tree monocrops. Jefferson Smurfit is a vertically integrated corporation, including forestry operations, pulp production from virgin fibre and recycled paper, cardboard, paper and packaging production. Its facilities are located in the USA, Europe (Germany, Belgium, Spain, France, Netherlands, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and the UK) and Latin America (Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Puerto Rico and Venezuela). In May 1998 it signed an agreement to merge with another giant paper manufacturer (Stone Container Corporation) to create one of the world’s largest manufacturers of paperboard and paper-based packaging products. The combined entity, with annual sales of US$8 billion, will be called Smurfit-Stone Container. In order to be able to confront this giant, our friends in Venezuela require as much information as possible concerning Jefferson Smurfit, and in particular: - negative impacts in other countries - planned expansion in Latin America - environmental or other restrictions in the USA They are also interested in receiving information on a consulting firm linked to Smurfit, called Monitor Company (which might have links with Jaakko Poyry). If any of our readers is able to facilitate information on the above, please send it to us and we will forward it to Venezuela Source: personal communication with Venezuela and Jefferson Smurfit's web page (http://www.smurfit.ie) Forests menaced...plantations promoted. The highway Venezuela-Brazil was blockaded by a group of indigenous peoples of the Imataca and Gran Sabana regions to stop a high voltage electrical transmission line (Macagua II-Santa Elena de Uairen), that is being built through |
