***********************************************

WORLDWIDE FOREST/BIODIVERSITY CAMPAIGN NEWS

World Rainforest Movement Bulletin, No. 29

***********************************************

Forest Networking a Project of Forests.org

http://forests.org/ -- Forest Conservation Archives

http://forests.org/web/ -- Discuss Forest Conservation

12/29/99

OVERVIEW & COMMENTARY

World Rainforest Movement is putting out an excellent monthly bulletin

regarding happenings in rainforest conservation. Here is their December

bulletin chock full of news and information. Happy New Year!

g.b.

*******************************

RELAYED TEXT STARTS HERE:

Title: WRM Bulletin 29

Source: WORLD RAINFOREST MOVEMENT

MOVIMIENTO MUNDIAL POR LOS BOSQUES

International Secretariat

Maldonado 1858, CP 11200

Montevideo

Uruguay

Ph +598 2 403 2989Uruguay

Fax +598 2 408 0762

EMail: wrm@chasque.apc.org

Web page: http://www.wrm.org.uy

Oxford Office

1c Fosseway Business Centre

Stratford Road

Moreton-in-Marsh

GL56 9NQ United Kingdom

Ph. +44.1608.652.893

Fax +44.1608.652.878

EMail: wrm@gn.apc.org

Status: Copyright 1999, contact source for permission to reprint

Date: December 15, 1999

=================================

W R M B U L L E T I N 29

DECEMBER 1999

=================================

In this issue:

* OUR VIEWPOINT

- The battle of Seattle

* LOCAL STRUGGLES AND NEWS

AFRICA

- Nigeria: Cross River's forests need your help

- South Africa: what are the true costs of woodlots?

- Tanzania: afforestation, reforestation and the real causes of forest

destruction

- World Bank promotes oil palm and rubber plantations in Liberia and Cote

d'Ivoire

ASIA

- Indonesia: new legislation, old problems

- Malaysia: certification against peoples' rights in Sarawak

- Malaysia: the "progress" brought by the Bakun dam in Sarawak

- Philippines: remaining mangroves under siege

- Sri Lanka: politics in forests

CENTRAL AMERICA

- Costa Rica: environmentally or industrially-friendly forest management?

SOUTH AMERICA

- Bolivia: the government legalises what is illegal

- Brazil: say what they say, Monte Pascoal belongs to the Pataxo

- Brazil: will forest destruction be sponsored by the law?

- Colombia: the U'wa people do not surrender

- Colombia: the Embera Katio's struggle for life

- Chile: under the shadow of Pinochet

- Ecuador: the future of the Chachi indigenous people and their forests

OCEANIA

- Papua New Guinea: the struggle of the Maisin indigenous people

* PLANTATIONS CAMPAIGN

- Plantations' impacts are always social

- Aracruz: the naked emperor

- Networking in action: Australia-Uruguay

- Call for global moratorium on genetically engineered trees

- Tree plantations and trade

* GENERAL

- Indigenous Peoples' Seattle Declaration

- Dialogue with the World Bank?

- Declaration on Andean Ecosystems

* WRM GENERAL ACTIVITIES

- News from the International Secretariat

************************************************************

* OUR VIEWPOINT

************************************************************

- The battle of Seattle

What happened in Seattle was historical. Regardless of whether the

ministerial conference's failure to reach an agreement was the result of

the action of the thousands of people in the streets or the result of the

internal contradictions of governments -or a combination of both- the

fact is that history was made in the streets and not in the "green rooms."

What was historical was not the fact that the police -which as everyone

now knows is not that different in the US than elsewhere- used batons,

tear gas, rubber bullets, helicopters and other "peace-keeping" tools.

That is the usual pattern used by governments whenever they get

frightened. The US government proved to be no exception. What was

historical was the fact that so many people, from all over the world, got

together and expressed -through different means- a common demand: no new

round! Not because all those people were against trade in itself, but

because they all shared the view that trade must be equitable, beneficial

to people and respectful of the environment. Those people knew that the

WTO negotiations were going in the opposite direction -inequitable,

beneficial to transnational corporations and disrespectful to the

environment- and joined forces to oppose it.

The different people present in Seattle carried out their activities in

different arenas. Some organized seminars open to activists and government

delegates, others lobbied the different government officials, many

disseminated their viewpoints on paper and in electronic format, some

organized press conferences, others implemented community radio

programmes, a few carried out high profile actions inside and outside the

conference room -for instance the Rainforest Action Network's huge banners

hanging from a crane- and many other activities. But most importantly: all

the above activities took place within the special atmosphere created by

the scores of thousands of people in the streets which resisted -in spite

of the cold, the wind, the rain and the police- throughout the WTO

ministerial. That heroic resistance in the streets was not only the core

component of the protest, but also provided additional strength to the

people involved in the other activities and most participated in both

street and indoor activities. Most importantly, the street got the media's

attention. When, in a normal situation, journalists would have focused on

interviewing government delegates, in this case they turned their

attention to the protesters.

It is obvious that this was not a spontaneous struggle. Much research,

awareness raising, training, information dissemination, networking and

organization took place well before the meeting. But neither was it a

centralized activity. Many people converged to Seattle through separate

channels and only joined forces there, unaware of who the other people

were, but somehow knowing that they were on the same side.

Seattle was in many aspects a huge success for WTO opponents and a

catastrophic failure for the future of this institution. The protest

achieved an incredible worldwide media coverage. Whenever people from

around the world hear again about the WTO, they will remember the battle

of Seattle and they will at least know that something smells rotten with

this organization. This is a very good start indeed.

But even more importantly, Seattle showed ways forward for many of the

local struggles which are taking place throughout the world to face the

same forces leading to social and environmental disaster. It showed the

strength that can be developed through decentralized and coordinated

action. It showed that people from all cultures can come together when

there is a common and deeply felt objective. And it showed the inherent

weakness of the seemingly invincible alliance of corporations,

multilateral organizations and governments. Some 50,000 people -armed only

with their convictions- made the whole building rock and this happened

within the boundaries of the mightiest military and economic power on

Earth. The apparently impossible seems to be -after this- becoming

possible.

************************************************************

* LOCAL STRUGGLES AND NEWS

************************************************************

AFRICA

- Nigeria: Cross River's forests need your help

Between 70 and 80% of Nigeria's original forests have disappeared and

nowadays the area of its territory occupied by forests is reduced to 12%,

even if the entire country is located in the humid tropics. All of the

country's remaining primary rainforest watersheds, covering about 7,000

km2, are located in Cross River state. This region also contains 1,000 km2

of mangrove and swamp forest, being oil exploitation an important cause of

their degradation and destruction (see WRM Bulletin 22).

Commercial logging and hunting of wildlife are important threats to

Nigerian primary rainforest and its dependent species. Cross River state

is very rich in biodiversity. It harbours several species of primates,

migratory and resident birds, and 950 species of butterflies -a quarter of

the number to be found in tropical Africa- 100 of which are endemic. Many

of Africa's rarest trees, such as mahogany, ironwood, camwood and mimosup,

grow in this forest, that is connected to a larger forest area in

neighbouring Cameroon. Exports of roundwood of valuable species -such as

afzelia (Afzelia africana), ekki, idigbo (Terminalia ivorensis), obeche,

and teak (Tectona grandis)- to Europe, the USA and Japan is depleting

Cross River's forests.

Social aspects concerning the region are also relevant. NGOCE -a coalition

of Cross River conservation groups- is promoting activities for a

sustainable use of the forests to the benefit of the local dwellers, as an

alternative to the present depredation by foreign actors. Among them:

education programmes for the local communities regarding the importance of

a healthy forest to their self-sufficient lifestyle, assistance to the

communities in developing alternative income-generating projects that will

alleviate pressure on the forest, and support to fundraising efforts and

provision of technical assistance to NGOs.

Recently Cross River state's new Governor, Mr. Donald Duke, suspended all

forest logging concessions that were granted under the previous

administration. The cancellation of logging licenses is connected with the

reckless manner in which the forest reserves had been exploited and a

response to the continuous demands of environmental and social NGOs, as

the above named NGOCE.

An international campaign is in course aimed at supporting these

conservation efforts. Those interested in contributing to it can address

Cross River's Governor, asking him to permanently revoke WEMPCO's forest

concessions and wood processing permits, which are currently a major

threat to the state's rainforest. Hong Kong-based WEMPCO plans to log and

export hundreds of thousands of board-feet of Nigerian lumber. Indicate

that sustainable, small-scale, diversified community businesses are far

healthier for communities and their economies than cut-and-run export

schemes, and that tree monocultures absolutely cannot replace complex and

rich forest ecosystems. Your messages are to be send to:

Mr. Donald Duke

Executive Governor of Cross River State

Office of the Governor

P.M.B. 1070

Calabar, Cross River State

Nigeria

Fax: (++234) 87 239 191

Source: Global Response, 22/11/99, e-mail: globresponse@igc.org

************************************************************

- South Africa: what are the true costs of woodlots?

What is a woodlot? Is it a patch of land planted to trees for the purpose

of supplying the fuel and timber needs of a rural community? Or is it a

small portion of a giant industrial plantation, meeting the pulp and paper

needs of first world industrial society?

An exact answer to these questions would help to erase the uncertainty

that exists in my mind. However, clear answers have not been forthcoming,

and over the past twenty years, whilst living in Zululand, I have come to

these conclusions.

The conversion of grazing or other agricultural land into Eucalyptus

plantations has been driven by the two larger timber-plantation companies

in the area. In their eagerness to obtain control of suitable land for

growing Eucalyptus, both SAPPI and Mondi embarked on a land acquisition

spree in the late 1980's. Vast areas that once consisted of hundreds of

independent, privately owned farms were purchased at what was then thought

to be excessively high prices. These high prices were motivated by

competition between the two major players and it was important to "close

the gaps" that stood in the way of consolidating these farms into vast,

mono-culture estates. This made it profitable for the last few farmers to

hold out as long as possible, while SAPPI and Mondi battled to maintain

their sources of raw material.

After acquiring the land the timber companies embarked on a course that

involved firstly, removing all former farm workers and the destruction of

worker accommodation. Even expensive farm-houses and buildings, such as

workshops and store rooms, were bull-dozed to make way for seemingly

endless tracts of gum trees (Eucalyptus species).

Where did the people who once lived on these farms go? Well, the white

farm-owners received a great deal of money and were able to move away to

comfortable homes in the midlands of KwaZulu-Natal or the Western Cape

(two provinces in South Africa) or Australia. What happened to the farm

workers is anyone's guess. Over-crowding in the tribal lands made

returning to these areas impossible. I suspect that most of them were left

with little choice but to head for the squatter settlements of Durban

(South Africa's largest harbour) or Dukuduku (an area of sub-tropical

forest adjacent to the Greater St Lucia World Heritage Site) where they

could eke out a living.

Once they had dealt with the problem of unwanted workers and buildings on

the farms that they had purchased, the timber companies were then faced

with another problem. This was the large numbers of staff that were

inherited with the acquisition of the privately owned Waterton Timbers and

Shell Forestry, (a subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell), by SAPPI and Mondi

respectively. On a single day, SAPPI retrenched more than 600 workers from

its Kwa-Mbonambi operation -all in the name of "rationalisation". This

meant that the company would save a lot of money through not having to pay

benefits to permanent employees. The risks of "unionisation" and strike

action were passed on to the contractors who were appointed to supply

labour and other services at cut-throat rates. Workers, who had formerly

enjoyed all the normal benefits of permanent employment, were now reduced

to having to beg or bribe for casual jobs on a daily basis. To make

matters worse, this was in competition with desperate informal migrants

from Mozambique. Many local people simply refused to work for the offered

daily rate of R12.00 (approx. 2 US dollars).

What does all of this have to do with woodlots? Particularly woodlots on

community land which belongs to the Ngonyama Trust, representing His

Majesty, King Goodwill Zwelethini (monarch of the Zulu people)?

Woodlots, which total thousands of hectares, but have never been subjected

to planting permit applications, which the law requires.

Woodlots, which are de facto the property of the large plantation

companies, but stand on land that they have neither purchased, nor paid

any rent for.

Woodlots, grown from seedlings supplied by the timber companies concerned,

yet who refuse to take responsibility for the negative social and

environmental problems that they cause!

In the Sokhulu tribal area, situated to the north of Richards Bay, it is

quite obvious that the dominant land use is Eucalyptus plantations. How

did this come to be? Well, the answer is quite simple: Mondi had purchased

as much white owned land as was possible, between the towns of

Gingindhlovu, Babanango and Hluhluwe, yet could still not satisfy the need

for wood at their mill at Richards Bay. They had no choice but to start

looking at the community owned land in former Kwa-Zulu apartheid homeland.

The Mondi RDP (Reconstruction and Development) "woodlot" project has been

so "successful" that hardly any land at Sokhulu remains unplanted to

Eucalyptus. Poor SAPPI, desperate not to lose the supply of raw material

needed to keep it's Mandeni and Mkomazi mills going, was forced to look

further north, to the rolling grasslands of coastal Maputaland. So

desperate in fact, that they even tried their luck in southern Mozambique

- thankfully without success!

Reconstruction and Development cannot be served by removing peoples' means

to survive in the rural environment.

So what is happening? Slowly but surely more and more land is being

planted to Eucalyptus. More and more water is sucked out of the Earth, to

create wood fibre, which is exported to destinations like Japan and

Europe, at a fraction of its true cost. A "privileged" minority appears to

benefit from the sale of timber to Mondi and Sappi, but for the vast

majority of members of traditional communities it means the end to the

natural resources upon which they relied for survival. Grazing for cattle

and goats has disappeared under the spreading plantations. The loss of

surface water has ruined prospects of growing food crops and people's

traditional lifestyle has been left in tatters. Where will these people

go? Well, some may move to informal settlements around towns in the area,

but many more have moved to the squatter-cities around Durban. Here the

people can taste the benefits of "civilised society".

Breathe the rotten air, polluted by factories, freeways and landfill

sites!

Roam the streets, scratching in waste-bins and sniff glue for pleasure!

Become economically active in the lucrative crime and prostitution

industry! Give their kids Coca-Cola and GE chips for lunch.

Thank you SAPPI, thank you Mondi for your great contribution to the

Reconstruction and Development of South Africa!

It must be admitted that there are other culprits. South Africa's

Department of Water Affairs and Forestry has failed to recognise the

monstrous problems arising from the proliferation of so-called woodlots,

using nice-sounding names like "community forestry " which is hardly the

case.

By Wally Menne, Timberwatch Coalition, 8/12/99, e-mail:

plantnet@iafrica.com

************************************************************

- Tanzania: afforestation, reforestation and the real causes of forest

destruction

Tanzania's forests are quickly disappearing and illegal commercial logging

is the main cause of the problem. Not only does the government seem unable

to address the present state of things, but forestry officials themselves

have been accused of being directly involved in the illegal timber trade.

Other suspects in the illegal timber business are timber product dealers,

private individuals, sawmillers and logging companies (see WRM Bulletin

27).

Recent news from that country say that the government has launched an

ambitious national tree planting campaign aimed at "re-greening" the

country by planting 100 million trees. To the official viewpoint, forest

destruction is particularly alarming in the rural areas where traditional

shifting cultivation and livestock keeping are practiced.

Thousands of refugees form Rwanda and Burundi have migrated to Tanzania to

escape from the situation of extreme violence resulting from the conflicts

that affect their respective countries. The authorities have recently

urged Burundian refugees in the western region of Kigoma to stop felling

trees and instead join the government's green campaign. Like their

Tanzanian hosts, the refugees rely heavily on wood fuel for their daily

energy requirements, since wood is by far the most important source of

energy in that country, as is common in Africa.

The government's initiative deserves some comments. It is not clear if the

government is envisaging a reforestation or an afforestation campaign. The

difference is essential, since the former means that areas that used to be

covered by forest will be planted with native species, aiming at the

rehabilitation of the original ecosystem, while the latter consists of the

plantation of exotic trees, usually fast-growing species. The social and

environmental consequences of the two approaches are totally different and

there is therefore a need for clarification on the matter. Secondly, the

official analysis of the causes of deforestation seems to be cleary biased

against the poor. While the emphasis is put on shifting agriculture,

grazing and the use of firewood by local people and refugees, nothing is

said about the intensification of export crop production in semiarid areas

-which has led to soil erosion and desertification processes- or about

illegal commercial logging -the main cause of deforestation in the

country- which is linked to corruption within its own agencies and

officials.

Sources: Panafrican News Agency, 29/11/99; The World Guide 1997/98.

************************************************************

- World Bank promotes oil palm and rubber plantations in Liberia and Cote

d'Ivoire

By different means the World Bank is one of the major and most influential

promoters of the prevailing monoculture tree plantation model. The

International Finance Corporation (IFC) -a part of the World Bank Group,

whose specific task is the promotion of private sector investment in

"poor" countries- has been directly investing in projects linked to tree

plantations, for example in Kenya and Brazil.

The IFC has recently signed two agreements to fund two of these

initiatives in West Africa. One of them consists of the reopening of a

rubber company in Liberia that was shut down during the civil war, while

the other is the set up of an oil palm plantation in Cote d'Ivoire.

The Liberian Agricultural Company (LAC) will receive a loan of U$S 3.5

million to develop a rubber plantation in its 120,000 hectares estate.

Between 1961 and 1984 the company had planted rubber there in an area of

10,500 hectares, which was abandoned because of the civil war. According

to its promoters, the project will create jobs, provide health and

education, and improve rural infrastructure, benefiting 800 small holders.

The holding company of Cote d'Ivoire's leading producer of rubber -Societe

des Caoutchoucs de Grand Bereby (SOGB)- will receive a U$S 6 million IFC

loan to establish an oil palm plantation in that country. The plantation

will occupy 5,000 hectares and in a second phase of the project the

company will build a crude palm oil factory to process its production. It

has been underscored that the new plantations will avoid areas of

secondary rainforest, which SOGB has guaranteed to protect. SOGB already

operates a 15,000 hectare rubber plantation and processes rubber, mainly

for export.

The globalization of the plantation model is a reality, also regarding

rubber and oil palm production. The Compagnie Internationale de Cultures

(Intercultures), an affiliate of Societe Financiere des Caoutchoucs

(SOCFINAL S.A.), owns 75% of the Liberian Agricultural Company. SOCFINAL

is a Luxembourg holding company with agricultural, real estate, banking,

and financial interests, and major holdings in oil palm and rubber not

only in Liberia and Cote d'Ivoire, but also in Indonesia, Malaysia,

Cameroon and Nigeria. In the rubber production project in Liberia also

participates PROPARCO, the private sector lending arm of the French

development agency Agence Francaise de Developpement. At the same time

both Intercultures and PROPARCO are shareholders in SOGB.

Mr. Tei Mante, Director of IFC's Agribusiness Department, said that both

agreements would lead to more employment and higher living standards, that

they will promote exports that will earn foreign currency, while

supporting agricultural production with maximum sensitivity to the

environment. Everything sounds incredibly nice . . . but the problem is

that reality shows a completely different situation. Promises of a higher

quality of life for local dwellers, an improvement of poor countries'

economies, the respect for the environment, etc. are in blatant

contradiction with the negative consequences on people and the environment

that similar projects based on vast tree monocultures bring about with

them. The few and poor quality jobs that such projects create seldom

improve local peoples' quality of life and the environmental impacts that

large-scale tree monocultures entail result in further impoverishment of

local populations. If the World Bank is really willing to fulfil its

mandate of poverty alleviation, then it should begin to reorient its loans

to investments which create better employment opportunities than those

generated by this type of plantations.

Sources: Africa News Online, 19/11/99, http://www.africanews.org

WRM Plantations campaign,

http://www.wrm.org.uy/english/plantations/material/WB.htm

************************************************************

ASIA

- Indonesia: new legislation, old problems

Intentional fires, tree monoculture plantations and mining are direct

causes of deforestation in Indonesia. Additionally, indigenous peoples

traditional rights over their territories are ignored. As a result, the

country's once vast and luxurious forests are vanishing and, according to

two recent independent studies, deforestation rate is faster than what the

authorities are used to admitting. A World Bank research, based on map

studies, and issued last July estimates an annual forest loss of 1.5

million hectares during the last two decades. The results obtained by a

research performed by the UK government-funded Regional Physical Planning

Programme for Transmigration reveal similar figures to the previous one.

Nowadays only 19.5 million hectares out of the 47 million hectares of

forests that Indonesia had in 1996 remain unlogged. The paper points out

that illegal logging is so serious a problem that most areas will not

recover sufficiently to allow a second cutting cycle.

In such context, urgent action to address the problem is essential, but

the government's response is not only totally inadequate, but even paves

the way for further forest destruction. In the final period of President

Habibie's interim regime a Forestry Act (Nr. 4/1999) was passed to

substitute the previous 1967 Basic Forestry Law. Indonesian NGOs, IPOs,

and academics consider that the new legislation is no advance to protect

the country's forests and forest peoples. During the consultation process

prior to its approval, civil society spokespersons had already expressed

their opposition to the draft's content and to the process itself, arguing

that it should have been more open and democratic.

The 1999 Forestry Act does not recognise the rights or protect the

interests of forest peoples, which are named as "communities with

customary laws" and not indigenous peoples. In this regard it is even

worse that the 1960 Basic Agrarian Law, since it explicitly includes

customary lands within state forests, which means that they can be granted

as concessions to private or state-owned companies. Participation of

communities is limited to guarding forests and reforestation programmes

but nothing is mentioned about decision-making. Restrictions imposed to

local communities for the use of forest resources are enormous what makes

difficult for them to continue with their traditional land use practices.

Some positive aspects of the new Law -as the acknowledgement of the role

of NGOs in monitoring forest developments, education programmes and

reforestation- are not essential and do not change the general approach of

the government, that refuses to address the underlying causes of

deforestation and forest degradation in the country, and to give place to

a democratic process regarding not only forest management but also the

fate of the people who live in them and have been the real guardians of

the forest.

Source: Down to Earth Nr. 43, November 1999, e-mail: dte@gn.apc.org

************************************************************

- Malaysia: certification against peoples' rights in Sarawak

Several NGOs -among them the Borneo Resources Institute (BRIMAS), Sahabat

Alam Malaysia (Friends of the Earth), SACCESS, Keruan Association

Sarawak, Centre for Orang Asli Concerned (COAC) and EPSM/CETDEM- took part

at the first consultative meeting of the Malaysian National Timber

Certification Council (NTCC) which took place from 18-21 October, 1999, in

Kuala Lumpur.

Even if the majority of the participants were representatives of timber

companies and associations and Forest Department officials, the

representatives of civil society were able to express their viewpoints on

the issue.

According to the organizers of the meeting, the primary objective of

certification is to attain sustainable forest management (SFM) and the

implementation process is through the establishment of the Forest

Management Unit (FMU) and further, the land areas within the FMU has to be

recognised as a permanent forest estate (PFE). In Sarawak, the

establishment of a permanent forest estate -which comprises Forest Reserve

and Protected Forest- requires the extinguishment of Native Customary

Rights over the land affected. Local dwellers would only conserve their

right to collect forest products for domestic purposes, subject to the

control of the Forest Department. The NGOs expressed their opposition to

this criteria and said that they would not endorse the proposed Malaysian

Criteria and Indicators for certification (MC&I).

In Malaysia, as well as in several Southern countries where communal

rights on land are recognised, it is clear that forest conservation is

strongly linked to the recognition of traditional rights on the land to

local communities and indigenous peoples, which have proved to perform

sustainable practices. On the contrary, the State administration

frequently paves the way to indiscriminate logging, commercial

plantations, mining and other depredatory activities with cause the

degradation and the destruction of the forests.

The NGOs present at the meeting circulated the following Position

Statement dated October 21st:

"In principle, we fully support the concept and implementation of

certification through the process of MC&I to achieve sustainable

management in Malaysia.

However, the attainment of sustainable forest management and the

establishment of the Forest Management Unit (FMU) of which the process of

the proposed MC&I can be implemented, ignores the native customary rights

and privileges of the local communities to enable their meaningful

participation.

The establishment of the FMU requires the constitution of Permanent Forest

Estate (PFE), the consequence of which, by virtue of the Sarawak Forest

Ordinance explicitly extinguishes the natives' customary rights and

privileges of the local indigenous communities over their land and

resources thereon. Therefore, the process of the MC&I is unable to provide

for the protection of the rights and privileges of the local communities

and to provide for meaningful participation of these local communities.

We henceforth propose that certification in Sarawak be deferred pending

the resolution of the above mentioned matter."

Malaysia, and the state of Sarawak in particular, have long been the focus

of attention and concern regarding the unsustainable exploitation of

forests. ITTO studies of the present decade have shown that log production

levels in Sarawak are consistently much higher than the ones ITTO itself

recommends as sustainable. Additionally, it has to be pointed out that in

a broader vision of sustainability -which includes not only technical but

also cultural and social aspects- the unsustainability of such practices

would be irrrefutable. The development of certification systems has been a

response to the consumers' demand for forest products produced in a

sustainable manner. Certification should offer an assurance of

environmentally sound, socially beneficial and economically viable

management of forests. This means that no certification would be possible

for Sarawak's forests unless present conditions radically change.

Sources: Borneo Resources Institute (BRIMAS), 12/11/99, e-mail:

brimas@tm.net.my bri@tm.net.my http://www.fern.org/fmonitor/sara.htm

***********************************************************

- Malaysia: the "progress" brought by the Bakun dam in Sarawak

For years the Bakun Dam Project has aroused great concern among

environmental and social NGOs and indigenous peoples' organizations in

Sarawak and worldwide, which have opposed this megaproject since it is

detrimental to Sarawak's remaining primary forests that lie in the

catchment area and to the indigenous people that inhabit them (see WRM

Bulletins 2, 9 and 24).

The forced resettlement of the Bakun residents -which sum about 10,000

indigenous people belonging to 15 longhouses- is another negative

consequence of this "development" project. Together with the

extinguishment of their Native Customary Rights over their ancestral

lands, thousands of indigenous peoples from the Kayan, Kenyah, Lahanan,

Ukit and Penan ethnic groups have been uprooted from their homes and

resettled in Asap, about 30 kilometres from the dam site.

Not only the traditional cultivation systems of the indigenous peoples

have completely disappeared -since each family has been given just a small

plot to work on- but also arbitrariness and irregularities reign regarding

the government's promise of compensation for their lost lands. Many of

them claim that they have been grossly undercompensated or of not having

received any money at all. Moreover, most of the compensations did not

even reach the price of the new modest houses they are now obliged to live

in. Even low cost houses in other parts of the country are much cheaper

and higher quality. Additionally, instead of involving the natives in the

construction of the new homes, Bucknalls -a UK based multinational- was

contracted to build the longhouses and infrastructures. Last but not least

the "modern" village lacks completely adequate infrastructure regarding

roads, waste disposal and schools.

With this resettlement the indigenous communities have lost their land and

are in a rapid process of aculturisation produced by the conversion of

their self-sustainable economy into a full cash economy. At the same time

their land and forests -which have been their home for centuries- will end

by being submerged by the Bakun megaproject. Can we call this "progress"?

Source: Mohamed Idris, Sahabat Alam Malaysia, 26/11/99; e-mail:

sahabat_alam_malaysia@yahoo.com

************************************************************

- Philippines: remaining mangroves under siege

Only 3% of the dense rainforests that once existed in The Philippines is

still standing and less than 1% of the former forest is still in a

pristine state (see WRM Bulletin 27). The Province of Aurora, which

comprises a strip of land between the Sierra Madre mountains and the

Pacific Ocean, is an exception, because unlike most of the country, it

still maintains over 50% of its original forest cover, even some as

primary forests. Along the coastline there are 430 hectares of mangroves.

The area is also home of the Dumagat and the Igorot indigenous peoples and

shelters some endangered species.

In the early 1990s, the shrimp farm Diapitan Resources Development

Corporation (DRDC) began to operate in the area. Its intensive operational

system -which comprises high stocking densities, concrete ponds, water

pumping, feeding with pellets and application of chemicals and chlorine-

have provoked concern among the residents of the villages of Masagana and

Maligaya. Already in September 1997 they presented a complaint in relation

to the environmental impact of DRCD's activities, such as salinization of

groundwater in wells which provide fresh water to the towns, skin

irritations suffered by mangrove fishers who gather shellfish near the

shrimp farm, fish kills and deformities attributed to chemical pollution,

severe reduction in fish catch near the shore, coral deaths due to

deposition of pond sludge, and alteration of river banks, limiting access

of artisanal fishing boats and causing flooding during heavy rains.

Nevertheless, the company is planning to expand its shrimp farming

activities to the adjacent municipality of Casiguran. This is the third

site that DRDC has tried to develop. Their first option to expand their

present site in Dilasag had to be abandoned due to the strong opposition

of local residents, and the permission for the second target area -a

proposed marine protected area in Casapsapan Bay- was denied by the local

government. A coalition of environmental NGOs and concerned people -called

Aurora Support Group- has been formed to protect these mangroves and to

avoid the expansion of DRDC in the area.

Industrial shrimp farming does not only provoke negative environmental

impacts, but also social ones. Although shrimp farms promise employment

and improved living standards for local communities, this is seldom the

case. In The Philippines, detailed studies of two communities in Iloilo

and Aklan, in the central region of the country, have shown that local

dwellers do not receive any benefit from this activity. Only low-paid,

unskilled jobs are available to local people, while managerial and

technical posts go to outsiders, and profits to the owners and

shareholders of the company. Additionally, small-scale fishers lose their

livelihood as mangroves are cut and marine resources degraded.

National legislation recognises the ecological, social and economic

importance of mangroves. Their cutting is banned and moreover, a mangrove

greenbelt along rivers and facing seas and oceans is required by various

laws. However, as in this case, reality differs very much from what the

law states.

For more information on the issue, please visit Industrial Shrimp Action

Network's web site:

www.shrimpaction.org

Source: Late Friday News, 50th Ed., 25/11/99.

************************************************************

- Sri Lanka: politics in forests

Forests are trees. Forests are biodiversity. Forests are wildlife. Forests

are lands. Moreover, forests are politics. Development is clearing of

forests. Conservation means more and more consultancies. Protection means

a wider and wider gap between the forest and the communities. Regarding

the forest issue, the context in Sri Lanka is not much different from this

reality.

The recent development initiatives promoted by the government aimed to

open the country's economy will be very destructive to the forest in

general. Aquaculture development projects have already destroyed about

4000 hectares of our mangroves since 1989. According to a survey performed

in 1982 we had only 8000 hectares of mangroves left. Although we were not

able to stop aquaculture in the north western province, since 1994 we have

managed to stop aquaculture development in the southern province.

A number of "development" projects which implied the clearing of 8000

hectares of forest to give place to a baby-corn plantation in Balaharuwa,

in the Uva province in 1998, the logging of 25000 hectares of similar

forests in the Monaragala district of the same province in 1997, the

destruction of 5000 hectares of another forest for a pineapple plantation

in Bibila, in Madagama also at Uva province in 1991, and the clearing of

2000 hectares of forest for "Rambutan" plantation, were stopped as a

result of successful protests carried out by environmental groups and the

public against those depleting activities.

Attempts are currently being made to allocate lands in national parks

among the government's political supporters within the framework of the

forthcoming presidential elections. The subdivision of 1200 hectares of

forest in Lunugamwehera National Park, 800 hectares from Wasgomuwa

National Park and 500 hectares from Ritigala Strict Nature Reserve are

major cases which have generated heavy protests.

The government which ruled the country from 1970 to 1977 is responsible

for the clearing of both dry zone and humid zone forests which affected

about 77000 hectares of the virgin Sinharaja Forests. As a result of the

protest against this destruction, the project was stopped, but the

infrastructure already established for the destruction of the forest

allowed the people involved in the project to continue carrying out their

activities with the government's support until 1988.

A forestry sector Master Plan was prepared by the Finnish "cooperation"

agency FINNIDA in 1986. The plan suggested that all the dry zone forests

-which are about 800-1000 years old- should be harvested. The plan also

stated that many humid zone forests did not play any essential role and

needed no protection, since Sri Lanka would get the monsoon rains twice a

year even without forests. Environmental groups, among which the

Environmental Foundation, protested so strongly that they were able to

stop World Bank funding support for the proposal. Moreover, in 1988 the

government declared a logging ban which is still in force.

The second Forestry Master Plan process started in the year 1991 and after

a 5 year process, a document was published. But nowadays it has become a

white elephant. Even if a new forest policy was adopted in 1995, the

current activities show that reality completely differs from what is

established by the law.

A recent proposal of the Asian Development Bank recommends the setting up

of tree plantations in an area of 1000 hectares, and the creation of joint

ventures for commercial logging. These joint ventures will be provided all

kinds of concessions, including facilities to import the latest equipment

for logging and for processing machinery, such as new timber mills. About

one third of the ADB funds under this proposal have been allocated for the

commercial forest management component, which comprises both forests and

plantations. It is the most recent initiative for the promotion of

commercial forestry in Sri Lanka.

The logging ban established by the governement is being evaded by illegal

logging. Politicians, bureaucrats and many powerful people are behind the

mafia which rules it. Every day more than 75 lorries transporting

roundwood come from Monoragala District, where most of the forests are

available today. This mafia operates with the support of the local

government officers and the forest officers.

Every now and then the government reacts, and adopts absurd steps to solve

the problem of the illegal felling of trees, trying to turn it into a

legal activity. For example, the Jack tree -a fruit tree- is protected

under the food act, and felling it has always been considered an offence.

Nevertheless, last year the government removed this law. Just after this,

more than 100,000 jack trees were felled with