[Ej-planet] [wrmfriends] WRM Bulletin 84

[Teresa Perez]

**********************************************************************
WORLD RAINFOREST MOVEMENT
MOVIMIENTO MUNDIAL POR LOS BOSQUES

International Secretariat
Maldonado 1858; Montevideo, Uruguay
E-Mail: wrm at wrm.org.uy
Web page: http://www.wrm.org.uy
Editor: Ricardo Carrere
**********************************************************************

=================================
W R M   B U L L E T I N  84
July  2004 - English edition

This bulletin is also available in French, Portuguese, and Spanish. Please
let us know if you wish to receive it in some of these languages.
=================================

In this issue:

* OUR VIEWPOINT

- Industrial shrimp farming in mangrove areas must be banned

* LOCAL STRUGGLES AND NEWS

AFRICA 

- Africa: Mangroves to Feed Shrimp Aquaculture
- Congo, Democratic Republic: Pygmies stand up to World Bank logging
development
- Kenya: The Maasai Stand up to IUCN Displacement Attempts from their
Forest
- South Africa: FSC Certification of Industrial Timber Plantations

ASIA

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

CENTRAL AMERICA 

- Costa Rica: The "eco" disguise of tourism threatens last pristine
forests
- Honduras: The Peoples' March for Life

SOUTH AMERICA

- Brazil: Mangrove Ecosystems Turned into Shrimp Aquaculture Ponds
- Colombia: Forestry as a business
- Ecuador: Certified shrimps
- Ecuador: Letter of thanks from Floresmilo Villalta
- Venezuela: The population of Aguide on the alert to face damages caused
by shrimp farms

* GENERAL 

- Pulp mills and transgenic trees: From Spain to Finland, opposition is
manifest

* THE CARBON SHOP FILES 

- The carbon spin doctors: How the World Bank explains emissions trading
to journalists
- The Plantar PCF project still in the spotlight

************************************************************
* OUR VIEWPOINT
************************************************************

- Industrial shrimp farming in mangrove areas must be banned

World perception about mangroves is changing positively. Once described as
insect-infested foul-smelling wastelands, they are now being more aptly
called "roots of the sea", "amphibious rainforests" or "coastal
nurseries". This new attitude constitutes a positive first step towards
their conservation, because a valued ecosystem stands a better chance of
being protected than one perceived as a useless wasteland.

This change in attitude is to a large extent the result of the activities
of numerous NGOs working together with local communities struggling to
protect their mangroves, and generating awareness at the national,
regional and international level about the social and environmental
importance of mangrove ecosystems.

Every July 26, many of those organizations carry out a number of organized
activities under the common banner of "Save the Mangroves!". This day was
chosen International Day of the Mangrove commemorating that day in 1998,
when a Greenpeace activist from Micronesia -Hayhow Daniel Nanoto- died of
a heart attack while involved in a massive protest action led by FUNDECOL
and Greenpeace in Ecuador. During this action the local community of
Muisne, together with the NGOs, dismantled an illegally placed shrimp pond
in an attempt to restore this damaged zone back to its former state as a
mangrove forest.

Actions such as the above are still unfortunately necessary and common
throughout the tropical and subtropical regions -where mangrove forests
occur- because powerful commercial interests -mostly linked to shrimp
production, oil and gas extraction, mining and tourism development-
threaten the mere existence of this unique ecosystem. Among these,
industrial shrimp farming poses one of the gravest threats to the world's
remaining mangrove forests and the wildlife and communities they support.
In words of Alfredo Quarto, director of Mangrove Action Project, "an
estimated 1 million hectares of coastal wetlands, including mangroves,
have been cleared worldwide for conversion to shrimp farms that range from
one-half to hundreds of hectares each. A telling sign of this
boom-and-bust industry, approximately 250,000 hectares now lie abandoned
due to disease and pollution." 

The expansion of such destructive activity is fuelled by voracious
consumer demands for cheap shrimp in the United States, Canada, Japan, and
Europe. As a result, mangroves that provide for the livelihoods of poor
local communities in the South are destroyed to feed the already well fed
and to increase the profitability of rich shrimp producers and
transnational trading companies.

The current situation can therefore be described as one where, on the one
side, the world has become more aware about the social and environmental
importance of mangroves, while, on the other side, unsustainable
production and consumption is leading to mangrove destruction and to an
increase in poverty in mangrove-dependent communities.

This paradoxical situation needs to change. Large-scale industrial shrimp
farming must be banned because of the already proven negative social and
environmental impacts it entails. Mangrove management should be put in the
hands of those who know how to manage them sustainably and whose interest
lies in their long-term conservation: the local communities. Shrimp will
of course become more expensive in northern markets, but will be again
freely available -together with the other means of livelihood mangroves
provide- to those who most need to feed themselves. 

The solution is obvious but not easy to implement. It requires a political
will that can only be achieved through increased pressure on governments
-in both North and South- to make them comply with what they themselves
have defined as socially equitable and environmentally sustainable
development -and have committed themselves to put in practice. In most
mangrove areas, this simply means banning industrial shrimp farming and
devolving management to the hands of mangrove-dependent local communities.
As simple as that.

************************************************************
* LOCAL STRUGGLES AND NEWS 
************************************************************

AFRICA 

- Africa: Mangroves to Feed Shrimp Aquaculture

According to the United Nations Environment Programme, 38% of Africa's
coastline and 68% of its marine protected areas are under threat from
unregulated development. Of concern are poorly-planned or regulated shrimp
farming operations. 

Relatively little shrimp farming took place in Africa until the early
1990s, but the continent represents a potential new frontier for the
industry and large mangrove areas are being targeted by developers, drawn
by rich natural resources, cheap labour and low land prices. African
shrimps are valuable due to their good quality, compared to the rather
small Asian shrimps. 

The current shrimp production in Africa is around 106,000 tons, and though
29 African countries are shrimp producers, just a few are involved in the
global market: Nigeria, with 20,500 tons per year, Madagascar with 17,000
tons in large scale aquaculture farms, and Morocco, with 13,000 tons. In
Mozambique, large-scale shrimp farms are reported to be planned near
Maputo (7,500 ha), Beira (19,500 ha) and Quelimane (6,000 ha). Shrimp
farms also operate in a variety of coastal and inland zones in Guinea,
Gambia, Eritrea, Egypt, South Africa, the Seychelles and Kenya. In Gabon,
the company Amerger is finalizing a shrimp farm with a potential
production of 2,000 tons per year, while in Quelimane, Mozambique, the
French-financed company Aquapesca built a pilot-scale shrimp hatchery and
farm (20 ha). 

Three biologically-rich and culturally important large river deltas are
among areas that have been targeted for new aquaculture developments: the
Niger Delta, the Tana Delta and the Rufiji Delta.

The Niger Delta. Nigeria's mangrove forests are the largest in Africa and
the third largest in the world. Local communities rely on the forests for
building materials and food, and it is estimated that 60% of fish caught
between the Gulf of Guinea and Angola breed in the mangroves of the Niger
Delta. Industrial shrimp farming supported by the Nigerian Government has
been proposed in the delta.

The Tana Delta is the largest wetland ecosystem in Kenya, comprising
riverine forests, mangroves, flood plains and grasslands. The company
Coastal Aquaculture Limited (CA) was allocated land in the Tana Delta in
the early 1990s in order to develop shrimp farms. However, the local
communities also claimed ancestral rights to the land. Following
widespread protest, the Kenyan government used a Presidential decree and
stopped the project. Litigation between CA Ltd and the government was
unresolved, and the company is now reportedly lobbying the new government
in order to restart the project and develop shrimp farms.

The Rufiji Delta contains the largest estuarine mangrove forest on the
east coast of Africa and is of considerable economic and conservation
importance. In the late 1990s, the African Fishing Company (AFC, run by an
Irish arms dealer, R. J. Nolan) planned the world's largest shrimp farming
project in the delta. The project, a 10,000 ha shrimp farm, was to take up
a 19,000 ha site, inclusive of feed plant, hatchery, processing plant,
etc, in the largest continuous block of mangrove in East Africa (53,000
ha). The project was endorsed by the government in 1998 in a deal that
also allowed Nolan to import over half a million dollars worth of arms
into Tanzania annually. However, a review of the Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) found it to contain substantial errors, omissions and
misrepresentations, including suppressed risks of the project.
Thirty-three thousand people resided in the proposed area in 19 registered
villages and scattered sub-villages - the EIA claimed that the area was
virtually uninhabited. Following widespread opposition to the project by
local communities, environmental organisations and academics, and as a
result of legal action by villagers with support from the Lawyers
Environmental Action Team and Professor Issa Shivji, this proposal was
eventually rejected and the AFC went into liquidation in August 2001. A
moratorium was declared on all commercial aquaculture in Tanzania until
the government has established proper guidelines. It was also declared
that aquaculture should not be conducted in ecologically sensitive areas
such as mangroves. 

The "forests of the sea" are facing hard times worldwide, harassed by
vested interests and fast-profit returns. It appears that only the strong
resistance of those aware of mangrove's invaluable richness -particularly
the local people who depend on them-- will guarantee their survival. 

Article based on information from: EJF. 2004. "Farming The Sea, Costing
The Earth: Why We Must Green The Blue Revolution", Environmental Justice
Foundation, London, UK,
http://www.ejfoundation.org/pdfs/farming_the_sea.pdf ; "Crevettes: la ruée
vers l'or rose d'Afrique", Yolande S. Kouamé, 17/04/2003,
http://www.rfi.fr/fichiers/MFI/EconomieDeveloppement/968.asp
************************************************************

- Congo, Democratic Republic: Pygmies stand up to World Bank logging
development

Together with the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO),
the World Bank is supporting the development of comprehensive new forestry
laws in the Congo, as well as the 'zoning' of the country's entire forest
area which would imply the logging of some 60 million hectares of tropical
forest. More than 100 environment, development and human rights groups had
challenged in February of this year those projects (see WRM Bulletin Nº
80). 

This process has been debated for some time. In February and March 2003 we
had already published evidence disseminated by activist Karl Ammann, who
disclosed how an Aide Memoire of the World Bank was actually the World
Bank's advise on how to reactivate the forestry sector (see WRM Bulletins
Nº 67 and 68) in order for the DRC to become the first timber producer in
Africa. The World Bank has been thus laying the grounds for the
development of industrial logging in the country. 

However, this wouldn't go without impacts. According to the Bank's own
estimates, as many as 35 million of the Congo's 50 million people depend
on the forests for their very survival. All those people could see their
livelihood undermined at the best, or even destroyed.

On last July 8, one of the potentially most affected groups --the 'Pygmy'
peoples-- put their case directly to World Bank President James Wolfensohn
requesting him to halt plans that could unleash a wave of destruction on
the rainforests where they live. This action took place during a video
conference organised by the Rainforest Foundation UK, which is also
challenging the Bank's plans for a massive increase in industrial logging
in the Congo.

This wouldn't be the first case for the World Bank disrupting the life of
'Pygmies': in Cameroon, the Bagyeli --one of the many different 'Pygmy'
peoples-- are threatened by a World Bank-sponsored oil pipeline which is
to be built through their land. The 'Pygmy' are forest dwellers, and know
the forest, its plants and its animals intimately. They live by hunting
animals such as antelopes, pigs and monkeys, fishing, and gathering honey,
wild yams, berries and other plants. They are seeing their rainforest
homes threatened by logging, and are being driven out by settlers. In some
places they have been evicted and their land has been designated as
national parks.

"You must not forget that the lives of indigenous peoples depend on the
forest," Adolphine Muley of the Congolese Union of Indigenous Women (UEFA)
told the World Bank President. "For a 'Pygmy' to talk of forest
exploitation is to talk of reinforcing misery and poverty. You must put
strategies in place so that the 'Pygmy' peoples are not damaged by the
system that you are developing."

Article based on information from: "Congo 'Pygmies' meet with World Bank
President", Press Release of the Rainforest Foundation, 8 July 2004,
www.rainforestfoundation.org.uk, sent by Simon Counsell, E-mail:
SimonC at rainforestuk.com ; "Tribes & People Groups. Pygmies", The Africa
Guide, http://www.africaguide.com/culture/tribes/pygmies.htm 
************************************************************

- Kenya: The Maasai Stand up to IUCN Displacement Attempts from their
Forest

Way back in 1994, a group of NGO people -among whom the current WRM
coordinator- were invited by the Maasai to visit a forest which they were
struggling to save from tourism "development". As a means of providing
international support to the struggle, an article was written and widely
disseminated in November that year in Third World Network's magazine
"Resurgence" (available at
http://nativenet.uthscsa.edu/archive/nl/9412/0140.html). That struggle is
still ongoing, but a new actor has appeared in scene -the IUCN- and what
follows provides a detailed description of the situation as it now stands
and on how the local people feel about it.

The Naimina Enkiyio Forest, one of the few remaining indigenous forests in
Kenya, is situated in Loita, in the south of the country, about 300
kilometers southwest of the country's capital Nairobi.  The forest
ecosystem is considered a shrine by the estimated 40,000 Maasai of the
Purko and Loita clans, since it is an important natural resource which has
a long history of use by them. The Loita pastoralists consider the forest
as alive, and responsive in many ways to their physical, spiritual and
cultural needs. It serves as an important dry season grazing zone as well
as a source for numerous rivers and is home to a wide array of fauna and
flora ranging from elephants to rare bird and plant species. Particular
trees are regarded as sacred. The many valuable forest-based products
include products derived directly from trees (medicine, edible fruits and
seeds, honey, and poles) as well as water, grass for livestock, and other
plants. The Maasai see the forest as their responsibility and its
sustainable use as a must. 

But now, a plan by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
(IUCN) may entail the Maasai's displacement from the Naimina Enkiyio
forest. This is not the first time that IUCN projects displace them from
their traditional lands. A similar IUCN project in Ngorongoro in the 1980s
forced Maasai to move out of the area to pave the way for the development
of a national park. 

"[The British] moved us from Nairobi and Nakuru [in the early 1900s], but
we shall fight current attempts to move us from Naimina Enkiyio," declared
an angry Loita elder during a June 7 demonstration which gathered one
thousand Maasai to oppose what they see as a takeover of the management of
the 33,000 hectare forest in Kenya's Narok district. According to reports
sent to the Centre for Minority Rights Development (CEMIRIDE), violence
erupted when police allegedly fired shots into the crowd of protesters and
injured a number of Maasai. 

By supporting the takeover, the Narok County administration would be
contradicting its October 2002 statement which granted Loita and Purko
Maasai the right to conserve, protect, control, preserve, and own the
Naimina Enkiyio forest. However, the future of the Naimina Enkiyio forest
has been debated since 1995 when the Narok County Council tried to gazette
the area for tourism. Despite legal opposition from the Loita Maasai, this
case has yet to be resolved. 

IUCN regional representative Eldad Tukahirwa says the objective of the
project is to reduce Maasai dependency on the forest by developing their
livestock and "building their conscience on the value of the forest."
Tukahirwa said the project proposal was based on "a year and a half of
consultations with the community." 

But those opposed to the plan argue that consultations were inadequate.
While pro-IUCN stakeholders are well-represented in the proposed
management body for the forest, the Loita/Purko support groups "Loita
Concerned Residents" and "Forest Morans" (young Maasai men) have been left
out. They allege that the Narok County Council has supported the IUCN
because of the $2.6 million earmarked for the project. 

Regarding the IUCN's stated intent to provide technical support to a
forest management team selected by the Loita/Purko community and IUCN,
Vincent Ole Ntekerei, spokesman for the Forest Morans and Loita Concerned
Citizens, asserts, "Naimina Enkiyio is one of the few ungazzetted forests
in Kenya, solely managed by the Maasai for centuries and therefore there
is nothing new we would be learning from IUCN." 

The resistance opposed by the Maasai may have rendered fruits. The
permanent secretary in the Office of the President in charge of Provincial
Administration, Mr Dave Mwangi, ordered the Narok DC, Mr John Egesa, to
halt the project until complaints raised by the Maasai community are
addressed. What would that mean remains to be seen. 

Article based on information from: "Loita and Purko Maasai resist IUCN
plans for the Naimina Enkiyio Forest", Michael Ole Tiampati, sent by
Cultural Survival Weekly Indigenous News, June 25, 2004, E-mail:
news at cs.org ; "Kenya: Contentious Forest Plan Halted", East African
Standard, June 25, 2004, Forests.org,
http://forests.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=33023 ; "Loita project of
integrated forest conservation and management (preparatory phase)",
http://www.unesco.org/most/bpik9.htm
************************************************************

- South Africa: FSC Certification of Industrial Timber Plantations

The environment pressure network Geasphere has charged the international
Forest Stewardship Council with acting irresponsibly in certifying the
massive spread of Industrial Timber Plantations (ITPs) in South Africa.

ITPs come at a massive cost to the natural and social environment, and
these costs have not been quantified, says Philip Owen of Geasphere, in an
open letter to the chair of the Forest Stewardship Council, David
Nahwegabouw.

"Certifying South African Industrial Timber Plantations with a 'green
label' is irresponsible and undermines your credibility," Owen charged, in
an earlier letter to FSC board members.

He asks the FSC chair why FSC board members, after visiting South Africa
and seeing the ITPs for themselves, did not even respond to Geasphere's
letter in April, which proposed a series of steps the FSC could take.
"...Please tell us if you don't agree that we have legitimate cause for
concern; and if FSC could be the vehicle to instigate the drastic changes
needed to move towards sustainably managed plantations."

The open letter outlines the way timber plantations have damaged the
environment in general, and in specific cases. It points out that timber
plantations are established in the rare high rainfall areas, primarily
grassland. These are some of the most floristically diverse areas of this
country. In South Africa, millions of hectares of primary grassland,
savannah grassland and pockets of indigenous forests have disappeared
beneath this sea of alien monoculture.

South Africa's most threatened bird species, Rudd's Lark, has been most
severely affected by destruction of its high rainfall grassland habitat
while South Africa's most threatened antelope species, the Oribi, can also
trace its demise to loss of the same grassland habitat. 

Industrial Timber Plantations are of fast growing, high yielding,
evergreen species, and consume vast quantities of the scarce water
resources. Many springs have become bone dry since whole catchments were
planted over with high impact ITPs. There are reports that with ready
access to water, a mature eucalyptus tree can use upwards of 500 litres of
water daily. There are also reports that in some areas where ITPs have
been established, the water table has dropped as much as 36 metres. 

Philip Owen adds: "It is sad to see how we people lose touch with the
reality of our relationship with mother earth. We substitute her bounty
with row upon row of monotony, smothering the life-force in the soils. As
we steal from this soil, we must remember that in truth, money does not
make the world go round."

He concludes: "On April 23, 2004 I wrote to the FSC board of directors and
others who attended a FSC stakeholders meeting in Sabie, South Africa.
Unfortunately, there has been no attempt from any of the FSC
representatives to respond to our concerns. I copy this (slightly revised)
letter below. I ask that you consider the statements and tell us if you
don't agree that we have legitimate cause for concern; and if FSC could be
the vehicle to instigate the drastic changes needed to move towards
sustainably managed plantations." 

This was the text of the earlier letter, to the members of the FSC Board
and others: "After your recent visit to South Africa, and having seen the
industrial timber plantations, you must be wondering how a million
hectares of these alien plantations can possibly carry the FSC label, and
how 80 per cent of South Africa's high impact timber industry could have
been certified within such a short period of time. 

We are greatly concerned that, by certifying industrial timber
plantations, the FSC is in effect misleading consumers who choose to buy
products which has been produced in an environmentally sound manner. 

I have no doubt that FSC contributes to better forest management and the
protection of forest systems world wide, but we feel strongly that
certifying South African Industrial Timber Plantations with a 'green
label' is irresponsible and undermines your credibility. It is not
responsible to promote the protection of one biome (indigenous forests)
even when this sometimes occurs at the expense of others, especially
grassland. Is one more important than the other?

The true costs associated with industrial timber plantations, including
loss of biodiversity resources and services provided by grassland (such as
flood prevention and carbon sequestration) have never been quantified, so
we are unable to make informed decisions about the extent to which the
industry itself can be called responsible.

I support Wally Menne of the TimberWatch Coalition when he writes: "there
is a need to establish the legitimacy of existing certifications in South
Africa, and to urgently undertake an immediate and complete review and
reassessment of such certified plantations".

The FSC should:

* Suspend certification issued to industrial plantations until such time
as a national FSC initiative has developed criteria and standards
applicable to local conditions which promote the protection of grassland
and other natural / semi-natural areas. 

* Incorporate certification standards applicable to Industrial Timber
Plantations, designed to facilitate a change towards organic,
diversity-based, agro-forestry practices in an effort to maximize soil
micro-life. 

* Not consider certifying any monoculture plantations established post
1994 in any natural area, so as to ensure the FSC does not contribute to
the destruction of other more threatened biomes, such as grassland. 

* Follow through on your promise to review principle 10.

It is clear that FSC Principle 10 does not contribute much to the
principle of 'sustainability' -- as surely it should. For example,
diversity of species is encouraged, but it would only contribute to
increased biological activity if the diversity is encouraged within
plantation compartments. Principle 10 in fact, endorses the destructive
and unsustainable industrial timber plantation model, and needs to be
revised urgently. The proposed notion of stretching FSC certification even
further, beyond industrial timber plantations to certify savanna game
reserves is to say the least, ludicrous. It begs the question whether the
FSC label has become first and foremost, a commodity to be sold to anyone
willing to pay for it?

Certification can contribute towards better plantation management, most
notably aiding the local regulating authorities in executing their
mandate. However, it would appear from viewing the unsatisfactory impacts
that still exist on the ground in many or most of the plantations that
bear the FSC label, that the standard is not rigorous enough and that
there are significant shortcomings with it. 

Invasive alien plant control is a critical issue within the 'forestry'
sector. How has the invasive alien plant situation in FSC certified timber
plantations changed since certification? Is weed control measures
functional, (are there more weeds? or less weeds?) and do you have
statistical data to provide proof? Please supply me with relevant data, if
available to yourselves."

The letter to board members concluded: "By certifying Industrial Timber
Plantations as responsible forests, the FSC is undermining the work done
by concerned individuals, communities and environmental organisations such
as the World Rainforest Movement, FASE, TimberWatch Coalition, GEASPHERE
and others." 

For more information contact Philip Owen , E-mail: owen at soft.co.za ,
www.geasphere.co.za 
************************************************************

ASIA

- Also in the Mekong ... plantations are not forests!

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Burma: China Continues Devouring Neighbour's Forests

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

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

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

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

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

- China: Ramsar Mangroves lost to Shrimp Farming

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- India: Welcome to Mowgli's Land

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CENTRAL AMERICA 

- Costa Rica: The "eco" disguise of tourism threatens last pristine
forests

Eco-tourism is perhaps the most over-used and mis-used word, not only in
the travel industry but also in the "development" schemes of governments.
But most of the time it just means tourism, the "smokeless industry" to
which many southern countries, facing debt burdens and worsening trade
terms, have turned in the hope that it brings foreign exchange and
investment. Simultaneously, leading international agencies such as the
World Bank, United Nations agencies and business organisations have been
substantially involved to make tourism a truly global industry.

However, tourism in developing countries is often viewed by critics as an
extension of former colonial conditions because from the very beginning,
it has benefited from international economic relationships that
structurally favour the rich countries in the North. The unequal trading
relationships, dependence on foreign interests, and the division of labour
furthered by the new economic globalisation schemes have relegated poor
countries in the South to becoming tourism recipients, enabled
transnationals to gain commercial access to ecologically sensitive areas
and biological resources, and accelerated the privatisation of
biodiversity, all to the detriment of local communities' land and resource
rights and the natural environment.

That is what is happening in Costa Rica. Government projects are going on
to give concessions on pristine land sea areas for the construction of
tourism complexes. A new Executive Decree was passed on May 2004 (Decree
Nº 31750-MINAE-TUR) which --among other things-- allows the construction
of buildings up to 14 m high and --following some requirements-- the
logging of forest areas to make way for "ecotourism" projects. It even
legalises the range of impacts that tourism projects could have on
forests: up to 15% of the granted area on primary forests, and 25% on
secondary forests. 

The Costa Rican Federation for Environmental Conservation (FECON), has
lodged an appeal on the grounds of unconstitutionality (see allegations of
Fecon at http://www.feconcr.org/frameset/content2.htm ) on 11 June, 2004.
As a result, a provision ordered to halt the logging carried out by the
company Proyecto Playa Dulce Vida S.A. However, the resolution arrived
late since the company had already cut down the forest.

A broad group of Costa Rican and Guanacastecos (people living in the
province of Guanacaste, who keep a strong sense of independence) have
discussed about tourism and defined what they do not want. And it is clear
that they do not want tourist mega projects which turn beaches, peninsulas
and forests into tourist enclaves. They do not want tourism that pollutes
and destroys ecosystems, affects the balance of wild areas, privatizes
roads and beaches, gives priority to the affluent tourist over the local
visitor, takes over the water of communities to irrigate golf courses.

Article based on information from: "Luz verde a la tala 'legal' de bosques
en zona marítimo terrestre", Juan Figuerola, FECON, E-mail:
feconcr at racsa.co.cr , info at feconcr.org , sent by Florangel Villegas,
E-mail: florangel.villegas at iucn.org ; Reports of FECON on the issue at
http://www.feconcr.org ; "Tourism, Globalisation and Sustainable
Development", Anita Pleumarom, Tourism Investigation & Monitoring Team,
http://www.untamedpath.com/Ecotourism/globalisation.html
************************************************************

- Honduras: The Peoples' March for Life

Some 3,000 people marched 200 kilometres to converge in Tegucigalpa with
the aim of demanding that President Ricadro Maduro's government protects
the country's natural resources. They came from four different Honduran
cities and took from 22 to 30 June to reach the capital.

The march was promoted by the Olancho Environmental Movement (Movimiento
Ambientalista de Olancho - MAO) and the Committee of the Families of
People Detained-Disappeared in Honduras (Comité de Familiares de
Detenidos-Desaparecidos en Honduras - COFADEH), together with other
student, worker, peasant and indigenous organizations and the Catholic and
Evangelical Churches. "This is an alarm to get the government to look
after forests, natural resources, water sources and the life of
generations to come," declared the parish priest of a locality in the
western province of Olancho, Father José Andrés Tamayo,. The previous year
he had also headed a march against indiscriminate logging of Honduran
forests by logging and mining companies (see WRM Bulletin No. 72). 

Here below are some excerpts from the speech made by Father Tamayo to the
demonstrators: 

 "After seven days of supportive cohabitation with the population along
the four highways leading to this Capital, we have finally reached our
destination. At times we were drenched with rain and at other times we
were burnt by the sun, advancing kilometre after kilometre towards a
common objective: life.

We have been monitored and stalked by land and from the air. We have been
threatened with deportation and lawsuits, sometimes by the very people who
should have supported us. We have been censored, sometimes by the very
brethren who should have kept their fears somewhere else. Warned of the
worst, all the worst, by the very authorities of the country who fear when
the people take the floor. Nevertheless, we are finally here.

It must be recognized that along each of the four highways covered, we
lived through seven days of solidarity and merriness with the people who
shared food, water, fruit, sheets, soap, lodging and joy. They financed
this March. They are the owners of this March. The people are aware that
nobody will do anything for them that they are not willing to do for
themselves. For years now, they have seen corrupt politicians occupy
public positions, from which they have been delivering forests, mines,
lagoons, beaches and land to foreign capital, and we do not even know
their origins. 

Those responsible for the present crisis are the corruption that produces
misery, the injustice that produces unrest, and the short sightedness of a
voracious political class with plane tickets to leave with our natural
wealth when the voices of the people join together. When things take on
the colour of life.

We are protected by article 65 of the Constitution of the Republic, which
recognises the right to life, and by article 80 that recognises our right
to petition. We are asking those supposed to have the power to make
decisions to stop the destruction of natural resources. We can no longer
tolerate illegal logging, auctioning of timber by the State itself, the
destruction of biodiversity in the South, open cast mining all over the
country, nor the contamination of our waters. We cannot remain silent
before the delivery of our natural wealth to those who do not take care of
it, to those who only turn it into money, destruction and death.

We have chosen the path of passive resistance, like Gandhi or Martin
Luther King. We have chosen the path of peace, like Saint Francis of
Assisi, but we have also chosen the path of dignity and life, like the
Honduran people. 

We have come on this National March for Life to ask the Government to take
various decisions, also the international community and ourselves. We have
come to congratulate the brethren of La Labor, Ocotepeque, who found the
strength in unity to evict a mining company exploiting its fresh water
sources in the cloud forest of Guisayote. We have come to congratulate the
people of El Rosario, Comayagua, the Valley of Siria in Francisco Morazán,
of Guinope in El Paraiso, of Aramecina in the South, of the fisher people
of the Gulf of Fonseca and the inhabitants of Olancho, among others, for
having understood that life should be defended there where we live, where
we cohabit with Nature.

As a newspaper from here in Tegucigalpa asked, "What follows?" Dialogue
follows and demands. We know that the President has before him the claims
of Hondutel, of intern doctors, of nurses, of the People's Bloc, of the
teachers, of INFA, of the Culture Secretariat, of the business community,
of the International Monetary Fund, of many people. But, what we are
seeking is himself, specifically his political will, and specifically we
are seeking the people, the will of the people, which is the source from
which sovereignty arises. Finally, the people are those who command. 

All is done for life. Let us always continue to March!"

Article based on: "Discurso del Padre Tamayo en la Marcha por la Vida",
sent by Cofadeh, e-mail: cofadeh at sdnhon.org.hn, and "Comunicado de
Cofadeh", http://www.cofadeh.org/ ; "Llega marcha ambientalista a la
capital de Honduras", The Associated Press, Freddy Cuevas,
http://www.univision.com/contentroot/wirefeeds/lat/253434.html
************************************************************

SOUTH AMERICA

- Brazil: Mangrove Ecosystems Turned into Shrimp Aquaculture Ponds

For many years, the mangrove forests were seen and actually often
officially designated as wastelands, not fit for anything but mosquitoes
and smelly swamp. Fortunately, this view of the tidal forests is changing,
influenced by recent scientific studies and public awareness campaigns.
Mangroves are now seen for their unique natural characteristics supporting
high levels of biodiversity, immensely important for the health of wild
fisheries and marine ecology. Mangroves are comprised of salt-tolerant
trees and other plant species which thrive in inter-tidal zones of
sheltered tropical shores, "overwash" islands, and estuaries which support
an immense variety of marine, plant, and bird life. Not only hundreds of
bird species utilize the mangrove wetlands as prime nesting and migratory
sites, but also they serve local populations meet their needs.

These unique coastal tropical forests are among the most threatened
habitats in the world. Urban expansion, oil development, the charcoal
industry, roadways, and tourism have all taken their toll on large
stretches of mangrove forests. Now these damaged ecosystems are facing
further ruination due to shrimp aquaculture. And the threat goes beyond
the continued loss of the forests to the related loss of associated tidal
wetlands. 

Unfortunately, very often the intricacies of this quite complex and
interconnected ecosystem are not recognized, and the mangrove forests are
viewed by some as somehow separate or isolated from their associate
wetlands found on the tidal flats--the mud and salt flats, the salinas and
salt marshes which are themselves really part of a greater, integrated
tidal ecosystem. These are not really separate ecosystems, but are instead
variations on a common theme--the tidal wetlands. Where there is now a
mangrove forest, in the future there could be a salt marsh or salina,
depending on changes in hydrology, sea level, or other factors. The mud
flat of today may well become the mangrove forest of tomorrow. In fact,
with the rising sea levels reportedly caused by global warming, existing
mud flats and salinas may offer the only place of refuge for the natural
progression of the mangroves. If the tidal wetland areas directly behind
the mangrove are lost to development, this natural progression of mangrove
forest will be thwarted or stymied.

The shrimp industry has increasingly taken the approach that the mud flats
and salt flats are NOT valuable coastal wetlands, and in places such as
Brazil, are rapidly converting these wetlands to shrimp aquaculture ponds
with immunity from laws meant to protect the mangrove forest zones. 

Brazil contains the second largest mangrove area in the world --more than
one million hectares of mangrove forests are found along Brazil's long and
curving coastline. Shrimp aquaculture has existed on a small scale in
Brazil since the 1970s. Until recently, the industry has grown slowly,
increasing production at a steady yet manageable pace. In 2000, there were
approximately 5,000 hectares of shrimp ponds in Brazil, many of which were
built directly in mangrove areas. Most of the ponds, however, were built
in salinas, or salt flats, which were former mangrove lands cleared many
years ago to establish shallow salt pans. Many of these salinas have since
been abandoned, and were naturally returning to mangroves. 

Now, entrepreneurs interested in shrimp farming ventures are targeting
these areas. The industry is currently being primed for a rapid spurt of
growth, possibly leading Brazil to take a place among the other
aquaculture giants such as Thailand, Ecuador, and China. In 2000, the
Brazilian government released an ambitious three-year plan to expand its
shrimp aquaculture industry's area of production six fold --from 5,000 ha
to 30,000 ha. In 2002, Brazil had over 10,000 ha of shrimp farms that
produced about 60,000 tons of farmed shrimp; ponds are expected to cover
25,000 ha of important coastal wetlands with a production anticipated to
exceed 160,000 tons by 2005.

Brazil's shrimp industry would thus lead to the same environmental
problems it has caused elsewhere, including overuse of pesticides and
antibiotics in the shrimp ponds themselves, excessive water pollution,
devastating viral disease spread between shrimp farms, loss of important
coastal marine habitat such as mangroves, mudflats, and salt flats - all
resulting in wild fish declines, loss of vital migratory bird habitat and
loss of traditional livelihoods for coastal communities.

The shrimp aquaculture industry takes a great toll not only in terms of
natural resource loss but in some cases even of violence and death. In
April 2002, a fisherman in Piaui, state of Brazil, Sebastian Marques de
Souza was murdered at his workplace by two men. According to the "pastoral
of the Fishermen" (groups of fishermen working together and supported by
the Catholic Church) the assassination was connected to the shrimp
aquaculture industry. Marques de Souza was one of the main leaders that
had been fighting against the uncontrolled expansion of shrimp aquaculture
which had been buying, or appropriating, the lands within or surrounding
mangrove forest zones in order to build there shrimp ponds. Those lands,
in the majority of the cases, were public lands and local people had been
using them for many years collecting all the products they needed to
survive and to maintain local economies.

Meanwhile, a multitude of national and multinational investors is vying
for space along the Brazilian coast to establish new shrimp ventures.
Shrimp farmers from Ecuador's and Taiwan's own beleaguered coasts are
coming to Brazil to restart their once-lucrative ventures anew. As is so
often the case, the enticement of enormous capital gains is unfortunately
blinkering the Brazilian government and citizens to the dangers shrimp
farming will pose.

Article based on information from: "Brazil's Shrimp Farm Industry: Not For
The Birds", Alfredo Quarto, MAP, sent by the author, E-mail:
mangroveap at olympus.net , "Protest Assassination of Anti-Aquaculture
Activist in Brazil",
http://www.earthisland.org/takeaction/new_action.cfm?aaID=114 
************************************************************

- Colombia: Forestry as a business

It seems important to learn why for the past few years the issue of
forestry in Colombia has been at the hub of the main debates and the
government agenda. This article endeavours to reply to this question and
to show some political elements that allow us to affirm that the issue of
forestry and its environmental services are just another business, not
only at national level but also at a global level. 

The present Government's National Forestry Development Plan (Plan Nacional
de Desarrollo Forestal - PNDF), conceived for the next 25 years, seeks to
establish 4 million hectares of monoculture tree plantations. This year
the plan is to plant 17,000 hectares, mainly of oil palm. In spite of the
fact that these are clearly monoculture plantations, they are presented as
"reforestation". However, it is interesting to point out that the forestry
development plan does not mention the real figures for deforestation, that
are much higher than the data supplied by the government on this matter.

Among the reasons given to promote monoculture tree plantations is the
fact that the country's geographical and environmental characteristics are
extremely suitable for the development of productive plantations with a
high production of timber, due to the short felling cycles (7 - 15 - 20
years) among other advantages.

The Government is promoting commercial tree plantations through the
so-called "Productive Chains" which have been promoted since 1995, seeking
to sign Competitiveness Agreements with the private sector, represented by
producer organizations and entrepreneurs. In this context, the Government
encourages various policies, plans and projects aiming at improving the
competitive environment of the various links in the chains and the
companies' own conditions of competitiveness.

With the development of these Chains, it is expected that "forestry
development" cores will be identified and consolidated, making it possible
to reactivate investment in new productive projects under conditions of
competitiveness, promoting regional agreements and establishing strategic
partnerships between the public and private sector and with the community
in general. Thus the base of timber resources will be widened,
consolidating the productive chain scheme and placing forestry products
and services on national and international markets.

This seems to us to be a matter for extreme concern as the reorganization
under way in Colombia, not only at institutional level but also at the
territorial level, involves these Productive Chains. That is to say,
national production is conditioned to the demands of external markets and
therefore, of the transnational companies that are the buyers. In other
words, Productive Chains are linked to international trade, which in turn
dictates what each country should produce. This explains the reason for
monoculture palm, palmetto, eucalyptus, pine, etc. plantations. The Chain
thus becomes the way of producing, and it should be noted that small
producers are left out of it, as the interest is on large-scale
production.

This means, among other things, insecurity and loss of food sovereignty,
as land use and production are not based on the needs of the population,
but on the contrary, are aimed at ensuring the business of transnational
companies promoting these Chains. From our point of view, there is no
doubt that land use must in the first place benefit the population and not
be considered as simply another business.

Hence the inadvisability of monoculture tree plantations, as their
profitability is directly associated with the commercial and extensive
nature of the plantations, without any concern for eviction from and
expropriation of collective lands, traditionally inhabited by peasants and
Indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities. 

It should be noted that President Uribe himself has been one of the most
enthusiastic supporters of the forestry sector, as a pillar of the new
"development" in rural areas, promoting tree plantations. Thus one of the
National Development Plan's major programmes, known as "Forestry Warden
Families" receives strong economic support from International Cooperation
to carry out projects related with land planning and conservation and
restoration of forest ecosystems, promotion of productive forestry chains
and institutional development.

Although this may seem positive, what is hidden behind it is that by means
of economic incentives, these families become incorporated into the
large-scale extraction chains. These finally favour the multinational
company owning the plantation while additionally, the national Government
endorses and creates the right conditions for the application of this
policy, channelling resources directly from International Cooperation to
these Productive Chains and to the business.

Simultaneously, through this model of forest warden families, the
establishment of a relationship of salaried workers with the local people
is sought and it is expected that the communities will cease to relate
with the forest as in the past, and more particularly the Indigenous and
Afro-Colombian communities. Furthermore, the Government strategy aims at
appropriating community territories that will end up in the hands of
forestry companies. 

All this is hidden behind nice-sounding words, such as "reforestation"
"land planning" "conservation" and "restoration" when in fact what is
really happening is the substitution of diverse ecosystems and communities
by homogeneous plantations and societies, tied to the interests of the
large companies.

By: Paula Alvarez Roa, CENSAT Agua-Viva, Friends of the Earth - Colombia,
e-mail: agua at censat.org
************************************************************

- Ecuador: Certified shrimps

The certification process for organic shrimps in Ecuador is promoted by
Naturland, a German certifying company that launched processes in 1996 to
certify shrimp farming companies in the country and to achieve
accreditation of a green seal enabling exporting companies to enter
markets with better prices and standards of quality. The main markets for
organic shrimps are Germany, Switzerland, France and the United Kingdom.

In Ecuador, approximately 1,000 hectares of shrimp farm ponds have been
certified. Part of the certification process requires compliance with
Naturland standards -prepared with the support of the German cooperation
agency GTZ- with national legislation and the obtaining of social benefits
derived from this activity.

Certification is viewed by some environmental sectors as a way of
promoting multi-sectoral participation -NGOs, the private sector and the
governmental sector- although the participation of communities involved in
the process appears as a secondary consideration. The potential benefits
of environmental certification in Ecuador are seen as follows: market
access, reduced costs, social benefits and increased employment.

* Market access: "They hope to attract green consumers who pay higher
prices for products guaranteeing lower environmental impacts in their
production process." However, most of the German consumers of the Deutsche
See company, the largest fish supplier in Germany, which has been selling
"ecological" shrimps since 2003 from shrimp farms certified by Naturland,
do not know that 40 per cent come from aquiculture. The consumers believe
they are buying fish from the wild, and also suppose that there is respect
for the environment, the communities and the laws of the country of origin
of the product. However, in practice this is not the case. 

* Reduced costs due to savings in the purchase of agrochemical products
and benefits to the companies, among which "less conflictive relations
with the workers, local communities and environmental groups, reduction of
erosion and other environmental and economic benefits." The comparative
advantages of producing in the South also cut costs: fewer environmental
regulations, cheap labour, and the environmental cost of the destruction
of mangroves is not considered, resulting in a much higher ecological debt
generated by this export activity.

* Social benefits: "The reduction of toxic chemicals, provision of basic
working equipment for the workers, construction of basic sanitary
facilities and provision of recreation areas and social services have
improved the welfare and productivity of the workers. These benefits are
enjoyed by local communities." In the case of shrimp farms, there is no
evidence of improvement for the local communities that continue to face
restrictions in land available for agriculture, loss of free access to the
remaining mangroves, loss of water resources, implying a reduction in
their income and loss in their quality of life.

* Increased employment: "The growth of exports has generated more
employment." This statement, in the case of shrimp farming does not
coincide with the true situation. Because of the crisis in the sector, the
number of workers has dropped and the level of employment in shrimp farms
is fairly low, in addition to the fact that employment is temporary. In
general, workers are not hired from the same area and working conditions
are not among the best. If we compare this statement with the number of
jobs lost because of mangrove destruction and the effects on traditional
fishing, activities that used to be carried out by families, the balance
is negative for the shrimp industry. 

This vision of the potential benefits of certification does not consider
that the promotion of these export activities and their endorsement as a
model has been done to the detriment of food sovereignty and that export
activities such as shrimp farms, palm tree and banana tree plantations and
flower growing, have shown their negative effects in the country. 

The certification of shrimp farms has not brought with it either social or
environmental benefits, reforested mangrove areas have not been returned
to the ecosystem and problems still subsist with neighbouring communities
that no longer have free access to the remaining mangrove areas and
furthermore, have not been consulted.

The standards and procedures used in certification processes are not
transparent, the information is not made public, the community has not
been consulted and they do not comply with national legislation.

In practice, large companies are benefiting from a green discourse that
does not correspond to what is happening in the sector, and are not even
complying with the standards they are obliged to conform with to obtain
certification. They are more concerned over cleansing their image.

Certification responds exclusively to an issue of Northern consumers
-ensuring "cleaner" food- rather than improving conditions in the
mangroves and local communities. 

The development model in which certification is framed privileges the
exportation of products to satisfy consumers from industrialised countries
before improving production for national markets, even at the cost of
destroying ecosystems, displacing the population and placing at risk the
ancestral users of coastal ecosystems.

By: Ricardo Buitrón C., e-mail manglares at accionecologica.org
Complete version of the article "Certification of organic shrimps. A Green
Seal to impunity" available (in Spanish) at:
http://www.wrm.org.uy/paises/Ecuador/camaron.html
************************************************************

- Ecuador: Letter of thanks from Floresmilo Villalta

Dear Friends,

I am Floresmilo Villalta, President of the Free Ecuador Poultry
Association and I wish to thank you -all the organizations and people who
have given me their moral and spiritual support. This has been a great
encouragement to the continuation of our struggle and I also know that you
too have felt very encouraged and this makes me feel very proud.

It is because of your public and written support that I am presently a
free man. However, the lawsuits and accusations against me and other
members of the Free Ecuador Poultry Association continue. With even more
reason, I will continuously struggle until we achieve the goal our
association has set itself. The goal of defending our forests, the last
ones remaining in the province of Esmeraldas, the source of many rivers
that form the basins of such rivers as the Santiago, the Cayapas, the Rio
Verde, the La Desgraciada river, a source of life to our peasant
companions. 

At the same time, we want to recover our lands that have been seized by
the Borrosa, Setrafor and Endesa logging companies, the most powerful ones
that fell thousands of trees a day as there is no authority in our country
that can halt their ambition and greed. We also defend our positions
because we have been vigilant and have taken up our position against the
powers of these predators, this is our motive and I hope to continue with
the support of all of you.

I wish to thank in anticipation all the noble institutions and people who
unconditionally support us in defence of the last forests remaining in the
north of the Province of Esmeraldas in Ecuador.

Yours sincerely,
Floresmilo Villalta, President of the Free Ecuador Poultry Association
************************************************************

- Venezuela: The population of Aguide on the alert to face damages caused
by shrimp farms

Aguide is located in the coastal zone between the Zamuro and Uvero Points,
and is part of the Parish of La Pastora, Acosta Municipality, in the
northeast of the State of Falcon. 

The population of Aguide is on the alert. A representative of a shrimp
farm project is amongst them, gathering signatures to request a meeting
where the "advantages" of the project for the locality will be announced.
To face this, various neighbours have gathered to consider the effects the
installation of a shrimp farm will have on the population and on the
locality, basing themselves on other similar projects carried out in other
localities of the State of Falcon and in the rest of the country, such as: 
 
* Larvae nurseries: there is information on 5 of these, one installed in
the Adicora zone (Municipality of Falcon) in the Paraguana peninsula in
the State of Falcon;

* Shrimp farms to fatten up shrimps and process them. It is estimated that
there are no less than 20 in the whole country, covering extensions of
between 600 ha and 4,000 ha. The majority are found in the State of Zulia,
followed by the State of Falcon, where an aggressive plan for their
expansion in number and extension is in force. This is seen through the
experience of RICOA (Municipality of Tocopero) that is presently under
expansion, the shrimp farms in Mitare and the one proposed in Rio Seco
(Municipality of Miranda); the plans in Casigua (Mene de Mauroa
Municipality) to occupy some 4,000 hectares and the threat to the
peninsular zone of the State caused by the projected installation of 10
shrimp farms in the zone of Cumaraguas (Municipality of Falcon), where,
according to the neighbours, the population is protesting against "such a
rash action." There is also the experience of the shrimp farm in the
Piritu-Anzoategui Lagoon (www.unare.org ), trying to demonstrate that this
is a sustainable experience after almost 17 years, in the belief that all
the impacts generated by its installation and expansion have been
forgotten. Other smaller shrimp farms are also known, together with their
impacts in other areas of the country (Coche-Nueva Esparta Islands) and
plans for the Orinoco Delta zone.

The inhabitants of Aguide believe that they are still in time to prevent
problems and conflicts such as those occurring in other places because of
shrimp farming. Although this type of project usually promises job
opportunities, the truth is that they are mostly seasonal jobs during the
building phase (only while installation lasts) and then during operation
at the time of the shrimp harvest and processing. Permanent jobs are few
and are mainly for surveillance, shrimp feeding and maintenance of the
ponds. The rest of the staff is technically specialized, brought in by the
company from other countries or regions. 

Furthermore, the population and the natural physical environment will be
subject to a series of negative impacts, both during the phase of
construction and operation of the shrimp farms and also when these are
abandoned. In fact, it is a habit of the companies to abandon the site
when activities become unproductive, leaving behind a whole series of
environmental and socioeconomic damage. The neighbours have identified the
following foreseeable impacts, among others: 

* During the construction phase, the elimination of flora, fauna, soil and
wetlands in the zone under intervention; the danger of zones protecting
water courses disappearing; the effects on the Ostion channel where the
population fish for crabs, shrimps, bass, shad, and others; deforestation
and/or impacts on mangroves located along the coast and at the mouth of
the El Cristo River and the Ostion channel; substitution of the present
coastal landscape by extensions of land covered with nursery and fattening
ponds, reducing the natural and cultural diversity of the location. 

* During the stage of operation and maintenance: alteration of the beaches
(erosion and siltation) because of changes in the movement of sea water
due to its extraction by channels, breakwaters, and/or pumping and the
discharge of waste water; contamination of water in the bay due to the
quantity of nutrients, heavy metals and other chemicals (agro-chemicals,
antibiotics, fungicides, conservation additives, disinfectants and others)
used to clean the ponds and in the prevention and control of possible
viral, bacterial or fungal infections, substances which in the medium and
long term may generate unforeseeable impacts (the problem of
eutrophication) on the coastal marine environment; competition for
drinking water from the springs that supply the population of Aguide
and/or the El Cristo reservoir supplying Mirimire (Municipality of San
Francisco) and other populated centres; restriction on free access by the
population to the whole coastal zone as the area where the project will be
installed will become a totally private zone; the killing of birds and
alteration of their flight dynamics to prevent them from approaching the
ponds; alteration of the local climate on substituting a terrestrial
system by an aquatic one affecting the surrounding flora and fauna;
alteration of the water table level and salinization of soils in the zones
under the influence of the shrimp farm, making them unsuitable for
cultivation; soil subsidence due to the extraction of underground water;
removal of larvae and juvenile fish and shell-fish due to sea water being
pumped towards the ponds; increase in the disposal of solid waste in the
zones surrounding the facilities; breeding of mosquitoes in the ponds or
the waters retained around the ponds on changing the water flow; danger
from the transmission of pathogens resistant to medication due to
cultivated shrimps escaping to the sea or the estuary; danger of local
species being displaced due to the aggressiveness of cultivated species
(exotic species) that may escape; the local consumption of shrimps would
be prevented as most of them would be exported.

* During the closure phase: abandoning of the facilities, causing
persistence of some of the above-mentioned impacts. This usually happens
when for various reasons the shrimp farms are no longer profitable, such
as the impossibility of controlling a virus, the lack of demand for
shrimps on the international market, the lack of funding from world
banking, or social pressure. An example of this latter case is that of the
shrimp farm abandoned in the Unare delta, in the State of Anzoategui. So
far, no model is known in which a shrimp company has carried out remedial
action following its closure to reduce environmental damage and enable the
improvement of conditions in the area so that other sustainable projects
can be carried out there, or that has reconditioned a zone to transform it
into another ecosystem by means of ecological succession.

The degree of awareness and clarity of those attending the meeting
regarding the problems set by the installation of a shrimp farm in the
locality led to an engagement to: 1) continue to be alerted to the
movements of the shrimp farm project; 2) find out about the existence of
the project and demand the Ministry of the Environment to make available
the environmental impact assessments that the company may have carried
out; 3) call on the scientific community that has carried out or is
carrying out research on the environmental characterization of the zone to
make these studies available to the community of Aguide to enable them to
better evaluate the environmental components of the location and to
request the assessment of the project with the aim of scaling the
magnitude of the environmental impacts, making them known on a local,
regional and national level; 4) gain knowledge of community shrimp
management as a strategy to reduce social pressure.

Article based on a report by: José L. Rodriguez R and Dolores I. Gonzalez
A "Agüide alerta ante avance de la camaronicultura en Falcón", July 2004,
http://www.elistas.net/lista/lea/archivo/msg/5190/

************************************************************
* GENERAL 
************************************************************

- Pulp mills and transgenic trees: From Spain to Finland, opposition is
manifest

There is no smoke without fire, and in this case, the fire is in Spain,
where the ENCE paper company has a pulp mill that for many years has
contaminated the Pontevedra river mouth. Although the company was finally
condemned and its executives ordered to pay fines and sentenced to prison,
the environmental "inheritance" continues (see WRM bulletin 75). The local
population is asking for the "factory to be closed" to enable them to
"recover the shell-fishing areas" and "the fisheries."

However, far from this, over the past few months, Ence has started
formalities to extend its facilities with the construction of a
tissue-paper mill, involving the consolidation of the industrial complex
in the area. However, the opposition has made itself felt. The first phase
of the extension (depuration works) was halted by court order last April
on the insistence of the local government and the Association for the
Defence of the River Mouth (Asociación pola Defensa da Ría - APDR). At the
end of June, APDR convened a march that is carried out every year
demanding the restoration of the river mouth and the immediate transfer of
ENCE. Over three thousand people - twice as many as last year, although
the organization estimated the figure at six thousand - supported the
demonstration that was endorsed by many collectivities, ranging from the
Federation of Castelao Neighbours to the Housewives Association, in
addition to the BNG-PSOE coalition (the Galego Nationalist Bloc - Spanish
Socialist Workers Party), the mayor and several city counsellors.

At other latitudes, 400 transgenic birch trees were destroyed in an
experimental field in Laukansaari (Punkaharju), Finland, in an action of
sabotage that took place during the weekend of 19 and 20 June. The Finnish
police declared that they did not yet know who was behind the attack, nor
did they know if people opposing genetic manipulation were involved.
Although an anonymous group made themselves responsible for the attack
(see http://www.alasbarricadas.org/info/article.php3?id_article=172),
beyond what they have really done, it is certain that there is increasing
opposition in Finland to transgenic plantations. This can be seen in the
mass support given by Finnish people and organizations to the letter
submitted in May to the United Nations Forum on Forests, demanding the
banning of transgenic trees (see http://elonmerkki.net/dyn/appeal/list).

The 400 trees, which were cut down or uprooted from the unguarded fenced
field, were part of the only field study on transgenic trees existing in
Finland. The research responds to the timber industry's interest in
cutting costs and obtaining trees with characteristics that are best
adapted to the needs of pulp production. 

What do these two events have in common? They show the rejection of two
activities that are cogs in a same productive model, one with clear
business aims. Both the pulp mill and the transgenic trees feed the global
paper market, becoming yet another product for consumer society, where
waste is prevalent and everything becomes disposable, thus feeding the
consumerist machine. Social considerations (and among them, environmental
considerations) are left on the way.

The "progress" being imposed with globalization of the paper business and
the installation of pulp mills brings much smog and dust with it and
literally smells of "rotten eggs." Perhaps the plotting of the plantation
of transgenic trees, usually without the knowledge of most of humanity,
does not visibly contaminate, but may be even more perverse in its scope
(see WRM Bulletin No. 83), as it tears the delicate and complex web of
life and perhaps later there will be no way of repairing it.

In the midst of the increasing marketing of life, many people still resist
having everything measured in terms of profit. Can a price be put on the
clear waters of a river? or on fresh air or on a limpid sky?

Article based on: "Protesters fell Finland's only GM tree study", June 24,
2004, Reuters, http://www.enn.com/news/2004-06-24/s_25187.asp ; "El
gobierno de Pontevedra respaldó una nueva manifestación contra Ence",
Cristina Barral, 29 June 2004, La Voz de Galicia, e-mail:
web at lavozdegalicia.es ; "Destruido campo de árboles transgénicos",
http://www.alasbarricadas.org/info/article.php3?id_article=172

************************************************************
* THE CARBON SHOP FILES 
************************************************************

- The carbon spin doctors: How the World Bank explains emissions trading
to journalists

"Carbon emission trading, a vehicle for development. Is this a story
that's worth telling? I think it is," Sergio Jellinek, a "communications
advisor" at the World Bank told a room full of journalists at the Carbon
Expo in Cologne last week.

Organised by the World Bank, the International Emissions Trading
Association and Koelnmesse (Cologne Trade Fair), Carbon Expo was supposed
to be "the Coming of Age of the Global Carbon Market". In fact only a few
hundred people coughed up the 980 Euros entrance fee. Most of them seemed
to know each other on first name terms. One in seven people were
journalists.

The first day of the Carbon Expo included an "interactive workshop for
journalists". Charles Cormier, a senior training specialist on carbon
finance at the World Bank opened the workshop with an introduction to the
topic.

Cormier's powerpoint presentation explained that climate change was real,
and that the details are described in the third report of the IPPC.
"That's the International Panel on, er, well anyway it's the IPPC," he
explained less than helpfully.

Later on, I met Cormier at the World Bank's Prototype Carbon Fund (PCF)
stall in the Carbon Expo. I asked him for an interview about Plantar, an
industrial tree plantation project in Brazil funded by the PCF. Plantar is
by far the largest PCF project in terms of the amount of carbon emissions
the project is supposed to save. "I don't know anything about Plantar", he
replied.

At the workshop for journalists Sergio Jellinek explained that the World
Bank was offering to help journalists "in terms of getting the story
right".

"You set the tone of the debate. It's a debate we want to be involved in,"
said Jellinek. "You are the masters of the decoding process," he added.

In his presentation, Sanjay Suri, a journalist with Inter Press Service,
described carbon trade as "trading in what might have been" and pointed
out that this is the first market ever created with the aim of
obliterating itself. He asked whether this new commodity was simply a way
of opening a new market for Northern companies to supply supposedly clean
technology to the South.

The World Bank's Charles Cormier then gave a short presentation. Cormier
accepted that carbon trade "is a very strange concept. It's a trade in
emissions that won't be emitted in the future." He added that "In itself
it' s a little bit of an experiment at the global level."

The fastest growing contributor of greenhouse gases, the airline industry,
"was a little bit left out of Kyoto", according to Cormier.

Cormier explained that the Carbon Expo would be carbon neutral. The
organisers had calculated how much greenhouse gas would be emitted by the
trade fair and by the visitors in travelling to the fair. To "compensate"
for these emissions Carbon Expo would buy carbon credits from a tree
planting project in Tanzania.

Cormier's argument could be summed up as follows: global warming is
happening, so we have to do something. Therefore the trade in carbon has
to happen.

The next presentation was from Richard Kinley from the UN Framework
Convention on Climate Change. Kinley explained that under the Kyoto
Protocol, "most" of a country's reductions in greenhouse gas emissions
should be domestic reduction. Kyoto's flexible mechanisms (emissions
trading, clean development mechanism and joint implementation) can account
for up to half of a country's reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

According to Kinley the criticism that the Kyoto Protocol is not a
solution to climate change is not fair. "Kyoto was never meant to solve
the problem," he explained. Kyoto is intended to be a first step. "Kyoto
is important because it sends signals," said Kinley.

Kinley said he liked very much Sanjay Suri's description of emission
trading as "trading in what might have been". He said, "This is probably
the first time in history that a new commodity has been created. It's not
quite up there with money, but it's quite unique."

Next up was Franck Lecocq, a World Bank economist. He enthused about the
new market in emissions and said that this year emission trading is likely
to be twice as big as last year.

I asked Lecocq how he would respond to Sanjay Suri's question about
whether carbon trading was little more than a way of opening up a market
for Northern companies selling technology to the South, while allowing
companies to continue polluting in the North. I asked why the World Bank
is involved at all, particularly since the World Bank's mission is
supposed to be to alleviate poverty, and not the creation of new
commodities.

Without blinking, Lecocq brought up another slide in his powerpoint
presentation. The slide explained that the World Bank's goal is to relieve
poverty and that climate change will affect the poor. Therefore the World
Bank is promoting trade in carbon emissions. "I forgot to show this," he
said.

None of the presentations at the World Bank's workshop explained how
carbon trading would address the issue of climate change. Neither did they
explain why the World Bank is using tax payers' money to sponsor the
creation of a new commodity which will primarily benefit Northern
industry.

This was left to Ken Newcombe, Senior Manager of the World Bank's Carbon
Finance Business. In a press conference immediately following the workshop
for journalists, Newcombe said, "The World Bank is reducing the risk for
private investors."

Outside Carbon Expo, activists held a banner reading "Stop Plantar". One
carried a kitchen sink labelled "Not a tree" and another held a plant in a
pot labelled "Not a sink".

The demonstration was organised by non-government organisations CDMWatch
and SinksWatch. Among the protesters were two Brazilians from Minas Gerais
where Plantar's plantations are. Juarez Teixera Santana of the Rural
Workers Trade Union in Minas Gerais said, "We have been fighting against
the destruction caused by industrial tree plantations in our country for
years. Yet now we are being told that these destructive projects are
'clean development' projects that protect the climate. They are neither."

By Chris Lang, E-mail: chrislang at t-online.de,
http://chrislang.blogspot.com
************************************************************

- The Plantar PCF project still in the spotlight

In June, the World Bank co-organised the Carbon Expo in Cologne, Germany.
This trade fair showcased projects on the look-out for corporate and
governmental buyers from industrialised countries for the greenhouse gas
emission reduction credits these projects claim to produce. 

At the Brazilian government booth visitors of the trade fair found a
leaflet about the Plantar project (see also WRM bulletin Nº 70 and 72 ).
But the information in the leaflet was in stark contrast to the message
that two representatives of the Rural Worker's Union from Minas Gerais,
where the Plantar project is located, brought to Cologne. In the view of
Grace Borges dos Reis and Juarez Santana Teixeira, a Kyoto Protocol's
Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) that funds the expansion of monoculture
tree plantations like Plantar was nothing more than a greenwash for
plantations companies. The Brazilian trade union representatives presented
evidence showing how two plantation projects that are aiming to become
accepted as CDM projects, have contributed to environmental degradation
and social tensions. Small farmers whose fields are located around the
plantations established by two companies - Vallourec & Mannesmann de
Brasil and Plantar S/A - have seen streams and swamps dry up as
plantations close in. The representatives of the Rural Worker's trade
union once again urged those companies and Northern governments that are
providing the funding for the expansion of Plantar's eucalyptus
plantations through the World Bank's Prototype Carbon Fund (PCF), to
exclude the Plantar project from the final list of projects that the PCF
will support in registering as CDM projects. 

Adding to the confusion, controversy and contradictions that surround the
Plantar project, a representative of the Brazilian government explained at
the trade fair that "at this point Plantar is only a PCF project, not a
CDM project because it does not fulfil the requirements of the Brazilian
Government". The apparent lack of full approval by the Brazilian
Government casts yet more doubt on the rigour with which the Prototype
Carbon Fund scrutinizes its projects. And for SinksWatch this apparent
lack of the necessary approvals is one more in an already long list of
reasons to say no to Plantar as a CDM project, because funding the
expansion of monoculture tree plantations is neither a contribution to
slowing climate change nor to the sustainable development of the small
farmers who see their fields dry up as the plantations expand.

By Jutta Kill, SinksWatch, E-mail: jutta at fern.org, www.sinkswatch.org


_______________________________________________

World Rainforest Movement
International Secretariat
http://www.wrm.org.uy