***********************************************
WORLDWIDE
FOREST/BIODIVERSITY CAMPAIGN NEWS
World
Rainforest Movement, Bulletin 33
***********************************************
Forest Networking a Project of Forests.org
http://forests.org/ -- Forest
Conservation Archives
http://forests.org/web/ -- Discuss Forest
Conservation
04/29/00
OVERVIEW
& COMMENTARY
Below
you will find World Rainforest Movement's excellent monthly
publication
regarding happenings in the rainforest movement. I send
these
on occasionally to make you aware of this free information
source.
g.b.
*******************************
RELAYED
TEXT STARTS HERE:
Title: WRM Bulletin 33
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 2000, contact source for
permission to reprint
Date: April 27, 2000
=================================
W R
M B U L L E T I N 33
APRIL 2000
=================================
In this
issue:
OUR
VIEWPOINT
- Local
peoples: a ray of hope in the forest
LOCAL
STRUGGLES AND NEWS
AFRICA
-
Gabon: logging companies' promised "development"
-
Kenya: the future of the Ogiek and their forests
-
Liberia: civil war and transnational profit making
-
Nigeria: Shell sets forests on fire
ASIA
-
Cambodia: too late and too little to protect mangroves
- Malaysia:
the end of the GTZ-funded 'FOMISS' project in Sarawak
-
Myanmar: a dam megaproject for the benefit of the people?
-
Thailand: free the Moon River!
CENTRAL
AMERICA
-
Honduras: action to protect mangrove forests and wetlands against
shrimp farming
SOUTH
AMERICA
-
Brazil: the same as 500 years ago?
-
Chile: forest management by indigenous communities
-
Colombia: International Mission and good news about the U'wa
-
Ecuador: heart of palm cultivation results in deforestation
- Venezuela:
increasing difficulties for Smurfit
OCEANIA
-
Innovative plantation initiative in Aotearoa-New Zealand
PLANTATIONS
CAMPAIGN
-
Campaign against genetically engineered trees
***********************************************************
* OUR
VIEWPOINT
************************************************************
- Local
peoples: a ray of hope in the forest
Three
main actors dominate the world forest scenario: local peoples,
governments
and transnational corporations (TNCs). While the former
are
trying to protect the forest that provides to their livelihood and
cultural
survival, they are being forced to confront -in an unequal
struggle-
the combined forces of TNCs and governments, whose
"development"
plans inevitably result in forest destruction.
The
present bulletin contains -as most of the previous 32 issues-
examples
of the above: industrial logging, oil exploitation, mining,
dams,
plantations, shrimp farming, the arms trade and other
investments
which result in making the wealthy more wealthy and the
poor
poorer, destroying, in the process, the forest which lies in its
way and
the people who inhabit it.
At
present, most tropical country governments seem to see their role
as that
of merely competing with other Southern governments in
offering
the best conditions for TNC investment, including subsidies
ranging
from tax breaks to repression of opposition in order to ensure
the
necessary profitability of foreign investments.
On
their part, TNCs obviously feel unaccountable to anyone except -and
only to
a certain extent- to their shareholders. They impose their
will,
not only over apparently weak Southern governments, but also on
Northern
governments and multilateral institutions. No-one ever
elected
them to govern anything, but they are in fact increasingly
governing
the whole world.
Within
such scenario, local peoples struggling to protect their
forests
constitute a ray of hope for the future. They are not only the
main
on-the-ground opposition to forest destruction, but they also
form
the basis for the establishment of worldwide alliances of people
willing
to protect forests and forest peoples, which would be
meaningless
without their struggles.
Additionally,
local peoples are working out and implementing
alternatives
for truly sustainable livelihoods, away from the official
and
already meaningless "sustainable development" discourse which
governments
and TNCs have emptied of the meaning it initially carried.
The ray
of hope represented by those peoples is, however, still not
strong
enough and needs support from all organizations working for the
respect
for human rights and environmental conservation. Such support
should
not be seen, however, as "us" assisting "them", but as a
collaborative
effort to ensure present and future livelihoods for all
people
on Earth.
The
Ogoni and Ogiek in Africa, the Pataxo and Mapuche in Latin
America,
the Karen and Dayak in Asia, together with countless other
indigenous,
traditional and peasant communities throughout the world
are
showing the way. Their struggles are ours and the more support
they
get, the more they shall open up avenues for humanity's future.
************************************************************
* LOCAL
STRUGGLES AND NEWS
************************************************************
AFRICA
-
Gabon: logging companies' promised "development"
Gabon's
primary rainforests are disappearing at a high speed. Logging
of
precious tropical wood is practised as a depredatory activity,
where
transnational logging companies, that hold huge concessions,
make
big money, while local communities have to bear the costs (see
WRM
Bulletin 28).
Logging
in the Mingouli region, near Libreville, is an example of the
above.
At the community of Ovan, people are concerned by destructive
logging
activities that are devastating the region, carried out within
a
framework of negligence by the
authorities of the Waters and
Forests
Administration, and the lack of interests by politicians.
Under
the pretext that local people are not able to "develop", logging
companies
are depriving them of their forests, paying scarce sums of
money
for coveted tropical wood -as okoume and other species- and
causing
negative effects on people's livelihoods and their
environment.
A scarcity of wildlife -used by local communities- due to
increasing
deforestation has been denounced. Additionally, the
promised
"development" has never come true. Logging companies do not
invest
in the villages, and the promised new schools and
infrastructure
have not arrived to benefit their inhabitants. Once
they
enter the area, they take as much precious wood as possible and
forget
about their promises. The main companies responsible for these
damages
are: Rougier-Ocean, SHM, FOX, BSG, Selectionna, Leroy, and
Lutexo
which have logged or are presently logging in the region. Even
if
local dwellers feel cheated and disillusioned by the companies'
false
promises, and feel abandoned by those who have the obligation to
defend
the country's resources, they are now organizing themselves to
resist
further destruction and to save the country's rainforests.
Article
based on information from: Ipassa Mingouli
Group, 11/2/2000.
************************************************************
-
Kenya: the future of the Ogiek and their forests
The
Ogiek people of Kenya -a minority forest-dwelling community
currently
composed of some 20,000 people- who have
lived from time
immemorial
in the highland Tinet forest area of Molo in Nakuru
District, have been defending their rights for decades
against the
arbitrariness
of both colonial and post-colonial governments, which
progressively
pushed them to marginal areas. Only in
1991 their
territorial
rights were partially recognized and a portion of Tinet
forest
was granted to them.
Nevertheless,
since powerful interests wishing to occupy their lands
for
logging continue to threaten them, they went to court to avoid
imminent
eviction (see WRM Bulletin 24).
Last
April 7 their appeal was determined as not urgent by the court.
Therefore
they are now exposed to the government's decision of
evicting
them. Their effort to hold on to the disappearing forest is
being
challenged by the state, which has allocated big parcels of
former
forest lands to the ruling elites, in addition to licensing
logging
in the Ogiek's forests.
If
Kenya really wants to conserve these valuable forests and to act
according
to the international agreements for the protection of
indigenous
peoples it has signed, the government has to respect,
protect
and fulfill the rights of the Ogiek to their settlement as a
forest
dwelling community. Instead of forcing the Ogiek to live as
marginalized
people, suffering from insecurity in their own lands,
programmes
should be implemented for the resettlement of the Ogiek in
their
traditional territories. This would ensure a better future for
the
Ogiek and for their forests.
Article
based on information from: wildnet@ecoterra.net, 7/4/2000 and
13/4/2000
************************************************************
-
Liberia: civil war and transnational profit making
During
the first years of the 1990s Liberia was the scenario of a
civil
war which left 150,000 fatal victims and one million people
displaced
or leaving the country as refugees. From January to November
1996
the war was triggered again until finally presidential elections
took
place in 1997.
Governments
of neighbouring countries, as well as European governments
and
companies -particularly Belgian and French- were involved in the
delivery
of weapons to the different groups engaged in the conflict,
in
exchange for gold, diamonds and roundwood.
France
provided the National Patriotic Front of Liberia (NPFL) with
guns
and received precious tropical roundwood in exchange. The
government
of Ivory Coast also helped the NPFL, and obtained the
benefit
of mining and forest concessions. The total value of illegal
wood
exports from the areas controlled by the different armed groups
in
conflict reached U$S 53 million a year. During the Liberian civil
war
period, the import of tropical roundwood from Liberia in Spain
increased
considerably, and since 1997 the flux has restarted.
Greenpeace-Spain
has recently denounced that the country's consumption
of
Liberian tropical roundwood is promoting social and environmental
destruction
in that country.
War is
now apparently over, but the usual vultures are ready to
continue
profiting in its aftermath. Transnational logging companies -
such as
LAMCO (USA-Sweden), Bridgestone (Japan), and Oriental Timber
Company
(Malaysia)- are targeting Liberia, where 35% of the
rainforests
still remain untouched (see WRM Bulletin 30). In spite of
the
government's declared intention of "minimizing forest destruction
and
promoting sustainable forest management", the economic and
political
power of foreign governments and companies, coupled with a
national
economy in shambles as a result of civil war, pose an
important
threat to their survival. And what needs to be stressed is
that
those same powerful governments, which appear as committed
promoters
of tropical forest conservation in international fora, are
the
ones which are most eager to profit from the destruction of
Liberia's
forests.
Article
based on information from: Miguel A.Soto, Greenpeace Spain,
April
2000; Liberian Forestry Development Authority, Annual Report
1999;
The World Guide 1997/98.
************************************************************
-
Nigeria: Shell sets forests on fire
In
October 1999 the Nigerian Minister of the Environment himself
blamed
multinational oil companies for the situation reigning in the
Niger
Delta, and gave them a six-week ultimatum to clean up the
communities'
environment affected by several oil spills (see WRM
Bulletin
28). However, nothing much seems to have changed.
For six
months -from 10 June 1998 to December 1998- a pipeline
belonging
to Shell Petroleum Development Company Limited (SPDC) in
Kolo
Creek, at Num River watershed, burst and discharged crude oil
into
the Oyara mangrove forests, endangering Otuegwe 1, a small rural
community
with predominantly indigenous population devoted to farming
and
fishing. Due to heavy rains that occurred during this period, the
oil
spill dispersed into surrounding water streams, farms and sacred
sites
of the Otuegwe. To face the accusations that blamed the company,
Shell
opted to blame the victims, and attributed the spill to an act
of
sabotage. Thus it declined to assume the responsibility of
repairing
the leaking pipeline.
Local
communities of farmers and fisherfolk, which had to suffer not
only from
health hazards but also from the impacts of the spill on
their
natural resources, started a campaign with the help of the Niger
Delta
Human and Environmental Rescue Organisation (ND-HERO). At last
Shell
had to respond to such pressure and hired Willbros Nigerian Ltd
to
repair the leakage. The company also chose an "environmentally
responsible"
way of eliminating the remaining residue of the oil
spill:
it set fire to vast extents of forest! This strategy of forest
burning
seems to be the official policy of Shell as a means of
"cleaning"
crude oil spills in the Niger Delta. Other communities of
the
Niger Delta, as Obelele and Igebiri, have witnessed this same
Shell
policy, and already 3,500 km2 have been destroyed by the effect
of the
drastic method of provoking intentional fires.
As a
result of the negative impacts of this activity, people of the
Niger
Delta do not want the oil companies in general -and Shell in
particular-
any longer in their territories. However, oil
transnationals
and the Federal Government continue to ignore the
communities'
claims, who have to pay the high cost of cheap oil. "We
promise
to listen", says Shell in its web page. But in the Niger
Delta,
the company seems to have become almost completely deaf.
Article
based on information from: Late Friday News, 59th edition,
31/3/2000;
e-mail: mangroveap@olympus.net; Shell's web page:
http://www.shell.com/royal-en/
************************************************************
ASIA
-
Cambodia: too late and too little to protect mangroves
During
the decade of the 1990s the Cambodian government, supported by
the
World Bank, tried to promote large-scale industrial shrimp farming
in the
coastline of the country. In 1993, the Mangrove Action Project
(MAP)
helped to avoid that the Thai agri-business giant Charoen
Pokphand
opens up Cambodia's mangrove coasts to a black tiger prawn
culture
project.
Nevertheless,
the idea was not abandoned, and new investors from
Thailand
subsequently financed intensive black tiger shrimp
aquaculture
operations in Cambodia, importing equipment, expertise and
even
feed to that purpose.
Koh
Kong province, which shares an extensive border with Thailand, was
invaded
by shrimp farming ponds and the industry promised a future of
prosperity
for the region.
But in
1994, shrimp fever had reached Cambodia. Once again, like in
Thailand
and Taiwan before, this disease became the biggest enemy of
the
intensive shrimp aquaculture industry. It was expected that
further
developments -which would mean further mangrove destruction-
would
be stopped. The government itself admitted that the mangrove
area in
Cambodia had decreased from more than 63,000 hectares in 1992
to less
than 16,000 in 1995, and the Ministry of the Environment
blamed
industrial shrimp farming for its depredatory activities,
placing
a temporary ban on new licenses. However, shrimp farming
licences
were still being given by the Fisheries Department after
1995,
and only recently, as the situation was getting worse, new
permits
were prohibited.
Nowadays
industrial shrimp ponds -that were supposed to bring
prosperity
to Koh Kong province- have been abandoned where mangroves
once
flourished.
Thai
capitals have also left the country . . . probably to establish
their
industry somewhere else, where mangroves are still standing.
Fifty
per cent of mangrove areas worldwide have already disappeared
and
shrimp farming is one of the main causes for this environmental
disaster.
How
long do we have to wait until further developments of this
industry
are halted for good?
Article
based on information from: Late Friday News, 59th edition,
31/3/2000;
e-mail: mangroveap@olympus.net
************************************************************
-
Malaysia: The end of the GTZ-funded 'FOMISS' project in Sarawak
Runaway
logging in the Malaysian state of Sarawak has been a major
concern
for environmentalists since the mid-1980s. The issue gained
international
prominence in 1987, when indigenous Dayaks, their
patience
exhausted after decades fruitlessly demanding recognition of
their
land rights, erected barricades across logging company roads to
halt
the destruction of their forests. When the government reacted
with
mass arrests and the detention of activists without charge or
trial
using colonial security laws, international campaigns in
solidarity
with the Dayaks were launched world-wide making the forest
destruction
in Borneo second only to the Amazon in terms of public
profile.
Technical evaluations by the International Tropical Timber
Organization
(ITTO) and the World Bank confirmed the unsustainable
rates
of harvesting of tropical timbers in the State and while the
ITTO
recommended a substantially reduced level of extraction and the
freeze
of logging in disputed areas, the World Bank recommended
measures
to recognise indigenous land rights.
Due to massive
corruption,
however, these recommendations were almost wholly ignored
by the Sarawak
and Malaysian governments.
Nevertheless,
building on the ITTO's recommendations, the German
Technical
Cooperation Agency (GTZ) developed a technical assistance
project
with one of the largest timber companies in the State to carry
out an
experimental, low impact logging operation. The project has run
into a
barrage of criticism from both local and European NGOs
concerned
about its likely impact on the indigenous Penan, Kenyah and
Kelabit
peoples who inhabit the project area. They have criticised the
project,
in its original conception, as a technical logging operation
which
will seriously impact primary tropical forests and which fails
to give
priority to the needs and rights of indigenous peoples. Their
main
concerns are:
- No
measures were contemplated to recognise the land rights of the
Indigenous
Peoples, even though indigenous communities are currently
pursuing
court proceedings to gain recognition of their rights to the
area.
-
Whereas almost the whole of the project area overlaps the
communities'
farming, hunting and gathering territories, GTZ staff
dismissed
the Dayaks' land claims as "excessive" and "unrealisable"
before
even investigating how the communities actually use the area.
-
Indigenous participation in project planning and implementation has
come
very late. This means the communities
either have to fit into a
pre-conceived
plan or reject the project. Many have rejected the
project
as a result.
-
Instead of building on existing indigenous land use and knowledge in
order
to develop a forest management programme that is socially and
environmentally
friendly, the project will subject the area to logging
while
encouraging the indigenous peoples to settle down to intensive
agriculture
on the fringes of their territories. Neither practice is
likely
to be sustainable.
- By
denying indigenous land rights, failing to consult effectively
with
the affected communities and logging primary forests the project
violates
the German Ministry of Development Assistance's guidelines on
forest-dwelling
peoples and tropical forests.
-
Although the aim of the project is to develop a model logging
project
that can be "certified", it violates Principles 2&3 of the
Forest
Stewardship Council, which require recognition of both legal
and
customary rights of indigenous peoples and for them to be legally
established.
After a
heated correspondence, during which GTZ at first tried to deny
these
problems, GTZ entered into a more constructive dialogue with
NGOs
and in late 1999 sent an independent consultant to the area to
review
the socio-economic component. The consultant's report
substantially
endorsed the NGO position and recommended measures to
address
the main concerns they had raised. The Sarawak government and
the
company, Samling Timbers proved reluctant to accept the revised
project
and in early 2000, GTZ decided to withdraw from the FOMISS
project
after their Malaysian counterparts refused to modify the
project
to address Dayak concerns.
By:
Marcus Colchester, Forest Peoples Programme/WRM Northern Office;
e-mail:
info@fppwrm.gn.apc.org
************************************************************
-
Myanmar: a dam megaproject for the benefit of the people?
Massive
protests against dam megaprojects have taken place in Thailand
due to
their negative social and environmental impacts. The cases of
Pak Mun
Dam (see WRM Bulletin 22 and new article in this issue) and
Rasi
Salai Dam (see WRM Bulletin 27) are perhaps the most notorious
even if
not the only ones. Now Thailand is trying to export this
destructive
model to neighbouring Myanmar (formerly Burma).
In fact
a Thai dam-building company -GMS Power- is proposing the
construction
of a big hydroelectric dam on the Salween River in
northeastern
Myanmar. At the same time, the Thai government has made a
commitment
in the sense that the Electricity Generating Authority of
Thailand
(EGAT) or other national agencies will buy up part of the
electricity
generated from projects in Myanmar by the year 2010.
With a
proposed dam height of 188 metres, Ta Sarng would be the
highest
dam in mainland Southeast Asia, and the first dam to be built
on the
2,400 kilometre-long mainstream of the Salween River. This is
the
only remaining free-flowing major river in the region. The 320,000
km2
Salween River Basin is also the least dammed of the region's major
river
basins. Menace is pending on this river since the beginnings of
the
70s, since Australian and Japanese consulting companies, together
with
Myanmar's and Thai state agencies, have produced seven major
studies
examining the possibility of constructing large dams there.
GMS
Power is a subsidiary of Thailand's MDX Group of companies.
Through
GMS, MDX is involved in dam projects in Cambodia, Laos and
China.
Lahmeyer International, a German consulting firm, coordinated
the
pre-feasibility study for the Ta Sarng project, and the Electric
Power
Corporation of Japan was contracted to oversee the project's
feasibility
study. According to it, the project's reservoir would
flood
an area of at least 640 square kilometres.
The
Thai-Myanmar Memorandum of Understanding signed in 1997 tries to
justify
the construction of large hydroelectric dams and other large-
scale
projects for electricity generation "for the mutual benefits of
the
peoples of the Kingdom of Thailand and the Union of Myanmar".
Nothing
could be more far away from reality. Large-scale energy
sector-related
infrastructure in both countries -for example the
polemic
Yadana gas pipeline project (see WRM Bulletin 22)- imply
forest
destruction, corruption, forced labour, and other violations to
environmental
and human rights. The vast majority of the population is
never
reached by the supposed benefits such megaprojects generate. In
this
specific case, a vast area of forests and fertile lands along the
Salween
River and in the tributary valleys would be permanently
submerged
by the reservoir. Many of these areas are used for seasonal
cultivation
of crops which serve the needs of local
communities.
Additionally,
the reservoir will destroy the aquatic and terrestrial
animal
habitat of the river and its valley, and radically alter
habitats
downstream of the dam. Additionally, as usually happens in
these
cases, thousands of local people have already been forcibly
relocated
from the site of the proposed dam and its reservoir, by
order
of Myanmar's military dictatorship.
"I
can't express what I feel. It would be worse than the death of my
mother
and father" answered a villager who was asked about his opinion
on the
flooding of his village due to the dam works. Is this the kind
of
"mutual benefits of the peoples" that the governments of Thailand
and
Myanmar are providing?
Article
based on information from: Watershed, Vol. 5 No. 2 November
1999 -
February 2000, published by TERRA, sent by: owner-irn-
mekong@netvista.net
24/3/2000
************************************************************
-
Thailand: free the Moon River!
Pak
Moon dam in the Ubon Ratchathani Province of North-East Thailand
has
been strongly resisted by local villagers, who are suffering its
negative
effects of drinking water shortage, reduction in the number
of
available fish, health hazards, flooding of their lands and
compulsory
relocation (see WRM Bulletin 22).
In
spite of the powerful adversaries they have to face, and that
already
ten years have passed since the year when the dam was set up,
their
struggle continues. Now the Pak Moon dam villagers are employing
local
traditions and customs to make their voices heard.
At the
beginning of April, more than 3,000 people gathered in their
boats
at the Pak Moon dam to perform the Sueb Chata Maenam, and to
lobby
authorities to let the Moon River run free again. Sueb Chata
Maenam
means "extending a river's life", and it is a modern adaptation
of an
old ceremony which pays homage to rivers, which are considered
the
life blood of Thai traditional society. Banners were unfurled
reading
"We Want to Return Freedom to our River," and "Rivers are
life,
not death". During the gathering, environmentalists and
academics
expressed their solidarity to the displaced people and
pointed
out the adverse effects of the so called development projects
on
local populations in Thailand. A petition will be submitted to the
Electricity
Generating Authority next month to halt operations and
open
the gates to let the river run free. Villagers expect that once
the
obstruction to fish migration is eliminated fish would return to
the
Moon River.
Globalization
advances as a powerful driving force eroding biological
and
cultural diversity worldwide. Dam megaprojects are but one token
of this
voracious development. Every expression of cultural resistance
-as
this one by the Moon river's villagers- constitute a step towards
an
alternative, more humane and sustainable world.
Article
based on information from: "Rituals and rivers. Protest:
Activists
float together calling for their river to be set free during
a
traditional ceremony" by Prasittiporn Kan-Onsri, Bangkok Post, April
4 2000,
sent by: Aviva Imhof, International Rivers Network, e-mail:
aviva@irn.org and "Open the gates and the fish will
return" by
Sanitsuda
Ekachai, Bangkok Post, April 21 2000, sent by Southeast Asia
Rivers
Network (SEARIN), e-mail:
searin@chmai.loxinfo.co.th
************************************************************
CENTRAL
AMERICA
-
Honduras: Action to protect mangrove forests and wetlands against
shrimp
farming
Honduras
has the obligation both under international and national law
to
protect 75,000 hectares of wetlands in the Gulf of Fonseca. On May
1999,
The Honduran Government, through the Natural Resources and
Environment
Secretariat (SERNA), during the RAMSAR Convention on
Wetlands,
obtained the designation of the Coastal Wetlands of the Gulf
of
Fonseca as "RAMSAR Site 1000".
Despite
this, Honduras is not fulfilling its obligation to protect the
"RAMSAR
1000 Site". Thus, CODDEFFAGOLF (a grassroots organization in
Honduras)
and the Industrial Shrimp Action Network (ISA Net) are
strongly
urging the Honduran government to fulfill its obligations
both
under international and national laws. Exact hectares of the
damage
is difficult to calculate because the areas are guarded by
goons
with AK47.
Thus
far, shrimp farming projects and the cutting of mangroves have
been
allowed inside the Ramsar Convention protected areas. This has
resulted
in the drying up of some of these otherwise protected
wetlands
of the Gulf of Fonseca. In "La Aguadera", Punta Raton, where
the
project "Habitat and Species Management Area in San Lorenzo" is
located,
a shrimp farming project was completed occupying several
hectares
of beautiful mangroves.
Trees
have been felled in "El Gorrion" (The Sparrow), the location for
the
project "Las Iguanas y Punta de Condega Habitat and Species
Management
Area". In the "La Berberia Habitat and Species Management
Area",
several mangrove areas and swamps like "Los Comejenes" have
been
destroyed to construct shrimp ponds. The constant use of the
highway
along the lagoon of La Berberia along the Nicaraguan border
has
greatly damaged the coastal ecosystem.
Late
last March, men felling trees using tractors in the zone of "El
Carey"
threatened a CODDEFFAGOLF member and expelled two government
officials
from the Environment Attorney's Office who tried to stop
them.
The
government officials returned five days later with a group of
policemen,
found men operating four tractors, succeeded in stopping
them
momentarily, but later found them again felling trees and now
using
six tractors. The loggers boasted that nobody could stop them
because
they were "well protected".
In view
of such situation, CODDEFFAGOLF and ISA Net are urging all
those
interested in the conservation of these wetlands to participate
in a
letter-writing campaign. Please write to:
Excellency
Mr. President of Honduras Carlos Roberto Flores Fax: (504)
235-6949
Cc:
Professor Rafael Pineda Ponce,
President of Sovereign National
Congress
of Honduras
Fax.
(504) 238-6048
Cc: Dr.
Delmar Blasco, Ramsar Convention Bureau, Gland, Switzerland
Fax: 41
22 999 0169
A model
letter can be found in our web page at the following address:
http://www.wrm.org.uy/english/tropical_forests/letters/Honduras2604.ht
ml
Article
based on information from: CODDEFFAGOLF, e-mail:
cgolf@sdnhon.org.hn
and ISA Net,
e-mail:
maufar@fppwrm.gn.apc.org
************************************************************
SOUTH
AMERICA
-
Brazil: the same as 500 years ago?
Five
hundred years ago, Portuguese conquistadores in shining armour
used
their modern weapons against indigenous peoples armed with bows
and
arrows. Now, police in shining riot gear used their modern weapons
against
unarmed civilians including indigenous, black and white people
protesting
against the official celebration of the arrival of the
Portuguese
in 1500.
The
photographs are self explanatory (see photos at
http://www.wrm.org.uy/english/tropical_forests/photospataxo2.html
).
The
reason? Again the "indians".
Towards
the end of March this year, indigenous peoples throughout the
country
left their villages and began to travel in the direction of
Porto
Seguro, the place where Brazil was allegedly "discovered", thus
going
in the opposite direction of the one taken in 1500 by the
European
colonizers. Within an atmosphere of expectation, on April 15
most of
them gathered together at Monte Pascoal, the National Park re-
taken
last year by the Pataxo, which then became a strong symbol of
the
struggle of all the indigenous peoples of the country, where still
more
than half of their lands have not yet been demarcated. More than
1500
indigenous people joined the 22 Pataxo families and celebrated
the
meeting with rituals, songs and speeches, giving their total
support
to the struggle of the Pataxo.
On
April 7th, they all headed for the village of Coroa Vermelha, in
Pataxo
territory, distant some 200 kilometres from Monte Pascoal and
near
the site of the "discovery": Porto Seguro. More than 30 buses
which
were carrying them were stopped by the first of many police
blockades
set up by the government to assure "public security",
involving
more than 5000 military police. The buses were only allowed
to
continue as a result of the direct intervention of the country's
General
Attorney. Having finally arrived at Coroa Vermelha, on the
following
day they opened the Indigenous Conference 2000, counting
with
the presence of 2500 representatives from 186 different
indigenous
peoples from all over the country, thus being the largest
indigenous
meeting held in the whole history of Brazil.
During
the 4-day Conference, the indigenous peoples managed to be at
the
forefront of the news coverage on the 500 years, showing their
strength
and indignation regarding the official celebrations. While
the
government was preparing and organizing very expensive and
excluding
celebrations, ignoring the real history of the country, the
indigenous
peoples managed -with minimal resources- to make public
their
history, their cultural wealth, their wisdom and their proposals
for the
next 500 years, involving respect for their rights, mainly the
demarcation
of their lands, as well as health and education adapted to
their
reality. They showed great strength and true unity, while the
government
was trying to show a false unity of all the Brazilian
people
and a strength based on the presence of thousands of military
police.
Then
April 22 came, the day of the "discovery" by Pedro Alvares Cabral
in
1500. It was meant to be a great day for the President of Brazil,
together
with his Portuguese colleague, showing the world that Brazil
is a
great nation with a happy people: a day of victory! But it was a
day of
defeat, a day reflecting the way in which the Brazilian
government
treats its people, particularly the original inhabitants:
the
indigenous peoples. It first tried to convince the 2500 indigenous
representatives
of not holding their protest on the 22nd, but to
choose
20 of them to hand a document to the President. Their response
was
that they wished to speak with him, but at a different moment,
because
the 22nd was not a day to have a photograph taken with the
President,
but a day of remembrance of the genocide of more than 5
million
indigenous people during the 500 years of the history of
Brazil!
The
response generated great tension. The government opted for
wholescale
repression. It prevented the entrance to Porto Seguro of
people
from all over the country, it prevented several movements
getting
together and prevented any type of protest. The police
attacked
a demonstration of more than 2000 indigenous people with tear
gas and
rubber bullets. In this way, April 22nd became a day of total
defeat
for the government. The image of an indigenous person -Gildo
Terena-
asking the riot police to stop their violence went around the
world,
terrifying a government always very concerned about the image
of
Brazil abroad.
The
indigenous people, sad and outraged, but proud about their
resistance
and unity, realize that they are now begining a new stage
in
their struggle and that nothing much seems to have changed in these
500
years.
The
government gave them the same treatment as the one given by the
colonizers
in 1500, when one of the major genocides in history began.
They
will need all their strength and unity to enter this new phase of
Brazilian
history. And it is from Monte Pascoal, the place where
colonization
began and was re-taken by the Pataxo, that the indigenous
peoples
promise to "re-take" Brazil and to contribute, with full
respect
to their rights, to the construction of a country without
exclusion,
truly pluri-ethnical and multi-cultural.
By:
Conselho Indigenista Missionario-ES, e-mail: cimies@aranet.com.br
************************************************************
-
Chile: forest management by indigenous communities
In
Southern Chile, near Osorno, lies the Huitrapulli estate -a 20,000
hectare
forest, inhabited since time immemorial by Mapuche-Huilliche
indigenous
peoples. The area is part of the extensive forests of
Valdivia,
which constitute one of the world's last non-fragmented
reserves
of temperate rainforests. The area is characterized by its
biological
diversity and by high levels of endemism.
Local
communities have always profited from the use of forest and
coastal
seaside resources, having developed a gathering economy, which
by
definition requires large extensions of territory. The area's
relative
isolation and the limited agricultural value of the land
determined
that it was spared of the European and Chilean colonization
processes
suffered by other Mapuche communities during the 19th
Century.
However,
the expansion of forestry activities in Chile -particularly
monoculture
tree plantations- during the last decades resulted in a
new
interest in those lands. The situation reached a critical level
when
the owner of a neighbouring estate began to occupy lands within
the
Huitrapulli estate, displacing the Huilliche communities. Such
situation
resulted in a number of conflicts which lead to the
intervention
of the police and the judiciary, where the communities
and
their professional advisors were taken to court accused of land
seizure.
In an
unprecedented action, the Supreme Court of Justice ruled in
favour
of the communities and their advisors, pointing out that the
lands
belonged to the State, while at the same time recognizing the
ancestral
occupation of the territory by the Huilliche. Subsequently,
the
ownership of the land was transfered from the Ministry of National
Assets
to the National Corporation of Indigenous Development (CONADI),
as a
first step in the land regularization process.
At the
beginning of this year, CONADI hired a group of consultants
with
the task of elaborating a proposal for the regularization of land
titling,
tied to an associated development proposal. The study,
currently
under implementation, is being carried out with the active
participation
of the involved families and will put forward
suggestions
regarding the boundaries between the communities at the
interior
of the estate, as well as on the type of land tenure
(individual,
communal, or mixed). The development plan will include an
evaluation
of existing resources and a number of projects aimed at the
equitable
and sustainable sharing of benefits from those resources.
The
case of these Huilliche communities is very important, because it
constitutes
an exception within the context of the traditional
relationship
between the Chilean State and the Mapuche people, which
has
included numerous conflicts regarding indigenous peoples'
territorial
rights. The success of this experience will be crucial for
its
replication in Chile and eventually in other countries of the
region
facing similar problems.
This
case is also very important to highlight the role that indigenous
communities
play in forest conservation. The Huilliche have for
centuries
used this forest sustainably, while most of Southern Chile's
forests
were being destroyed by "development". The legal recognition
of land
ownership constitutes a necessary step to ensure the future
conservation
of this unique forest by those who are most interested in
its
conservation: the Mapuche-Huilliche people themselves.
By
Rodrigo Catalan, CET (Centro de Educacion y Teconologia), e-mail:
catalanr@ctcinternet.cl
************************************************************
-
Colombia: International Mission and good news about the U'wa
From
March 15-21, 2000, an International Mission, summoned by the
major
authorities of the Embera-Katio and U'wa indigenous peoples,
visited
Colombia to observe in the field their situation concerning
the
long conflict in which they are involved to defend their
territorial
and cultural rights. The mission was conformed by
representatives
of indigenous peoples of Ecuador and Panama, the World
Rainforest
Movement, Oilwatch, Friends of the Earth, International
Rivers
Network, Rios Vivos, and other human rights and environmental
organizations.
The
members of the mission that visited the U'wa Territory at Arauca
Department,
in East Colombia, could see with their own eyes how the
U'wa
were organized in a camp of more than 2,500 people at Gibraltar,
counting
with the support of peasants' and workers' organizations.
Peace
and solidarity reigned in the camp, in spite of provocations by
army
personnel that were installed nearby. The adverse effects on the
forest,
soil, water and people of the works that Oxy's concessionaires
were
undertaking to open the oil well Gibraltar 1 were also observed.
Additionally,
the mission met Colombian authorities, ONIC (National
Peoples
Organization of Colombia), and affected people at the site,
and
reviewed all of the relevant documents related to the case. The
mission
was unable to interview staff from Occidental due to their
unwillingness
to do so.
As a
preliminary result of its work the mission emphasized that the
present
situation is critical from an environmental and social point
of view
due to works in course, that there are contradictions between
what
has been declared by the authorities and what was observed at the
site,
and that there exists a tendency to resolve the conflicts with
military
involvement disregarding the social and environmental aspects
which
originate them.
Among
other steps, it was recommended that the environmental license
for Oxy
issued on September 21st 1999 by the Ministry of the
Environment
be revoked; that guarantees are given and the integrity of
the
ancestral territory of the U'wa village is respected; that an
investigation
on the violent evictions against the U'wa that occurred
last
January and February is immediately undertaken; and that the
civil
authorities guarantee the legal right of peaceful protests by
the
affected people.
On
March 31st a Colombian court ordered Oxy to halt all construction
work on
the Gibraltar 1 well site on sacred ancestral land of the U'wa
people.
The
judge ruled that the drilling on the site would violate
"fundamental
rights" of the U'wa people, including their right to
life.
Nevertheless, the last word has not been yet said. Even if the
court's
decision is an important step, the injunction speaks of the
suspension
of the project and not of its cancellation. Additionally,
Oxy is
a powerful actor and the Colombian government itself -in spite
of nice
words regarding cultural diversity and even indigenous rights
established
in the Constitution- seems to be more interested in
promoting
oil exploitation than in respecting the rights of the U'wa.
But the
U'wa count on national and international solidarity and
especially
on their own strength to defend their rights.
Article
based on information from: Alvaro Gonzalez, WRM International
Secretariat,
Member of the International Mission; Oilwatch
International
Secretariat, 3/4/2000, e-mail: oilwatchuio.satnet.net
Global
Response, 4/4/2000, e-mail: globresponse@igc.org
************************************************************
-
Ecuador: Heart of palm cultivation results in deforestation
The
comercial cultivation of "palmito" palms (from which heart of palm
is
extracted) began in Ecuador in 1987 and since then its expansion
has
been constant, having become a new export crop. The heart of palm
is
obtained from the interior of the trunk of several species of palm
trees.
The "chontaduro" (Bactris gasipaes), a palm native to Ecuador,
is the
most cultivated in the country to this aim.
Palmito
cultivation is generating deforestation in extensive areas of
tropical
forest in several Amazonian provinces (Napo, Sucumbios,
Morona
Santiago, Pastaza), as well as resulting in the disappearance
of a
number of forest remnants of the country's Western region. This
crop
has found in Ecuador's tropical and sub-tropical regions the
perfect
agro-environmental conditions for its development: stable
light,
humidity and temperature, regular rainfall throughout the year
and
excellent irrigation and soil conditions.
However,
the impacts of palmito production increase as the area under
cultivation
is expanded. Among such impacts, the more important are
the
substitution of the original vegetation (particularly primary and
secondary
forests), loss of biodiversity and soil erosion. Many
palmito
growers have not even respected the vegetation protecting the
water
courses and have extended their plantations to the river
borders,
resulting in the falling of solid materials to the water and
thus
causing problems to downstream water users. They have not even
thought
about the need to conserve vegetation corridors to allow a
minimum
passage for local biodiversity.
Even
though palmito plantations have not yet reached the dimensions of
oil
palm monocultures in the country, it is already possible to
perceive
changes in the landscape and the disappearance of a large
part of
the forest remnants, particularly in the western foothills of
the
Andes.
Cultivation
of this palm is in constant expansion due to the increase
in the
global demand for Ecuadorian heart of palm and it is thus very
possible
that they might expand further,
resulting in the
disappearance
of the last remnants of biodiversity in Ecuador's
Western
region.
In many
spheres, the myth that monocultures of native species are "not
as
bad" as plantations of exotics such as oil palm, pine or eucalyptus
still
prevails. However, it is time to recognize that the prevailing
production
models -particularly large scale export-oriented
monocultures-
are environmentally unsustainable and that they don't
aim at
providing for basic human needs, such as food security. On the
contrary,
this model is generating impacts such as the loss of genetic
biodiversity
and thus reducing the future possibilities of survival of
humanity.
It is time to demand governments to take on their
responsibilities
regarding the local and global environment. It is
time to
understand that diversity has more advantages and value than
large
scale monocultures -be them of native or exotic species- which
are and
will always be socially and environmentally unsustainable.
By:
Lorena Gamboa, Fundacion Rainforest Rescue,
e-mail:
mlgambo@uio.satnet.net
************************************************************
-
Venezuela: increasing difficulties for Smurfit
Smurfit
Carton, subsidiary of Jefferson Smurfit, owns 34,000 hectares
of
monocultures of gmelina, eucalyptus and pine in the Venezuelan
states
of Portuguesa, Lara and Cojedes. 27,000 hectares are located in
Portuguesa,
where the company confronted the local communities of
Morador
and Tierra Buena, which resisted the invasion of tree
plantations
in their agricultural lands (see WRM Bulletins 18, 20, 22
and
23).
According
to recent information, Smurfit is facing severe sanitary
problems
in its plantations in Portuguesa. The uniformity of
monoculture
tree plantations makes them very vulnerable to the attack
of
insects and pests. The initial advantage of the plantation of an
exotic
tree -the absence of its local predators- becomes a catastrophe
when
either a local species adapts to feed on those trees or when its
natural
predator eventually arrives from its original ecosystem.
Whichever
the case, the fact is that many trees are now dying in these
plantations.
At the
same time, during the dry season fires have affected
plantations
in Portuguesa and Cojedes. Company's spokepersons have
accused
local peasants of sabotage actions against plantations. Fires
are
also very easy to burst with dry conditions and in a uniform
environment
as that of tree plantations, especially in the case of
eucalyptus
and pines. At present local villagers and environmentalists
fear
that Smurfit will try to compensate the loss of planted wood by
cutting
down nearby forests, as it did before the successful protests
of
1999.
From a
political point of view things do not seem to go well for
Smurfit
either. The new Venezuelan constitution, approved by a
referendum
in December 1999, includes explicitly environmental rights,
indigenous
peoples rights, and condemns land tenure concentration.
According
to principles of social justice in the countryside and
sustainable
land planning, commercial plantations are not allowed on
soils
apt for agriculture, since this would mean a competition with
food
production.
Smurfit's
future in Venezuela now seems to be -to say the least-
problematic.
Article
based on information from: Alfredo Torres, 18/4/2000; Prensa
Regional
del Estado Portuguesa. Grupos Ecologicos de Ospino,
18/4/2000.
************************************************************
OCEANIA
-
Innovative plantation initiative in Aotearoa-New Zealand
The new
Government of Aotearoa -a coalition supported by the Greens-
has
banned the cutting of indigenous beech trees (and soon probably
Rimu
and other species), because of the enormous pressure on the
country's
remaining areas of natural forest, which include temperate
rainforest
and temperate dryforest.
As a
result, the downstream beneficiaries of forestry (the mills and
processors)
took the Government to Court over the breach of existing
contracts
which if honoured would have seriously endangered the
sustainability
of beech forests. Luckily they lost in
Court, but the
action
set off a huge national fight over the future of the forestry
industry,
which is one of New Zealand's largest employers and most
powerful
industries.
Local
Indigenous Peoples Organizations and NGOs' response to the
pressure
was to point out that the country still has one of the
largest
radiate pine plantation areas and industries in the world, but
that
other countries are climbing on the pine bandwagon, and that
within
30 or 40 years the value of pine as a timber species is going
to drop
dramatically as competition lowers prices.
IPOs and NGOs are
currently
proposing that every time an area of pine is cut, a
percentage
of it be replanted with indigenous species, in order to
gradually
build up an equivalent of a biological corridor.
They
are also proposing that the "charismatic barrier" of these areas
at the
least include some non timber, but nectar and berry producing
species,
because there are more endangered native bird species in
Aotearoa
than in any other country. The charismatic barrier is the
roadside
part of plantations which are rarely cut so that the public
is not
visually confronted with the reality of large deforested areas.
Because
it manages to leave an illusion that cutting is not occuring
it is
called the charismatic barrier.
This
planting of indigenous species in plantations replacing pine
and/or
in areas of non productive farmland means that the country
would
be building up stock of indigenous tree species, so that in
fifty
or sixty years, when the pressure is really on to harvest
indigenous
species -as pine has become very cheap- the country would
have
plantations of indigenous trees that could be cut instead of
endangering
natural forests.
The
above scheme appears to be viable and beneficial because:
- It
would have fairly strong Chiefs' support, because indigenous
trees
are seen as Taonga (treasures) by the Maori elders
- It
foresees pressures on forests before they arise and provides
alternatives
for employment
- The
planting program itself is labour intensive and as such would be
supported
by Government in areas of high unemployment
- Using
the charismatic barrier as an area to include berry producing
and
nectar trees (indigenous) would provide an area for native birds
that is
currently non existant in most of the country
- Most
of all, it relieves pressure for the cutting of forests as an
employment
source
- It is
economically feasible
The
above ideas are currently being strongly promoted by a large part
of the
IPO/NGO community, with the aim of simultaneously promoting
forest
conservation and employment generation in a country where many
try -in
their own interest- to picture conservation and jobs as being
antagonistic
to each other. Thus -contrary to what industry always
tries
to prove- IPOs and NGOs are proving to be the truly reasonable
and
responsible actors, trying to make environmental conservation and
quality
of life compatible.
By:
Sandy Gauntlett, e-mail: sandygauntlett@hotmail.com
************************************************************
*
PLANTATIONS
CAMPAIGN
************************************************************
-
Campaign against genetically engineered trees
Genetically
engineered trees are a new threat pending on native
forests
and other ecosystems worldwide. The development of
"Frankentrees"
is being promoted by joint-ventures formed by
biotechnology,
chemical and paper giants, together with some of the
world's
largest landowners. Monsanto -which has a long dark history in
the
field of genetically engineered food- ForBio, International Paper,
Fletcher
Challenge Forests, GenFor, Canada Interlink, Silvagen, the
Chilean
Development Agency, Shell and Toyota are some of the firms
involved
in the development of this technology. The increase in the
consumption
of paper at the international level, as well as the
initiative
of considering tree plantations as carbon sinks -allegedly
to mitigate
the greenhouse effect- are the excuses for the promotion
of
genetic engineering in the forestry sector (see WRM Bulletin 27).
In
reality Frankentrees constitute a further step forward within the
large
scale tree monoculture model, which is already generating
extensive
negative social and environmental impacts throughout the
world.
GE trees will substantially increase those negative effects:
trees
will grow faster, thus intensifying the depletion of water
resources
and soil nutrients and in the seek for profit more and more
fertile
land will be occupied by tree monocultures, depriving people
of
their land and livelihoods. The future looks threatening, since
many
answers regarding security, biodiversity conservation and
technology
control remain unanswered.
On
March 27th the World Rainforest Movement, together with Native
Forest
Network, ACERCA (Action for Community and Ecology in the
Regions
of Central America), and RAN (Rainforest Action Network)
launched
an international campaign to face the development of
genetically
manipulated trees. The announcement was made in the
framework
of Biodevastation 2000, a grassroot gathering that took
place
in Boston, USA, from 24 to 26 March, under the motto "Resistance
and
Solutions to the Corporate Monopoly on Power, Food and Life".
Several
topics related to biotechnology were addressed during the
event,
and GE trees was one of the highlights of discussions. Those
interested
in receiving more information about this initiative, please
contact
the International Secretariat of the WRM or any of the above
mentioned
organizations.
###RELAYED
TEXT ENDS###
This
document is a PHOTOCOPY for educational, personal and non-
commercial
use only. Recipients should seek permission
from the
source
for reprinting. All efforts are made to
provide accurate,
timely
pieces; though ultimate responsibility for verifying all
information
rests with the reader. Check out our
Gaia's Forest
Conservation
Archives & Portal at URL= http://forests.org/
Networked
by Forests.org, Inc., gbarry@forests.org