Tag Archives: forests

A Broken Bridge to the Jungle: The California-Chiapas Climate Agreement Opens Old Wounds

By Jeff Conant, Communications Director at Global Justice Ecology Project

Photo: Jeff Conant

When photographer Orin Langelle and I visited Chiapas over the last two weeks of March, signs of conflict and concern were everywhere, amidst a complex web of economic development projects being imposed on campesino and indigenous communities without any semblance of free, prior, and informed consent. Among these projects is a renewed government effort to delimit Natural Protected Areas within the Lacandon Jungle, in order to generate carbon credits to be sold to California companies. This effort, it turns out, coincides with a long history of conflicting interests over land, and counterinsurgency campaigns aimed at the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN), as well as other allied or sympathetic indigenous and campesino groups.

California’s Global Warming Solutions Act, AB32, mandates targeted Greenhouse Gas reductions statewide. An important component of AB32 is its controversial reliance on market mechanisms, such as cap-and-trade, which will allow California companies to buy offset credits from participating domestic and foreign agencies. The cap and trade provision of AB32 hit a major roadblock a few weeks ago, when the San Francisco Superior Court ruled that the California Air Resources Board violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by not fully evaluating alternatives to the cap-and-trade system in the 2006 law. This is a significant sign of opposition to market-based climate solutions in California; but the local impacts in California are but one side of a global equation.

Bonampak. Photo: Jeff Conant

When Governor Schwarzenegger signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the states of Chiapas, Mexico and Acre, Brazil last November, to establish the world’s first sub national cap and trade agreement to use the emerging mechanism known as REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation), he set in motion a process that critics see as leading to potential land grabs in Chiapas and Acre, as well as continuing industrial contamination in California.

REDD, in Brief

The U.N. defines REDD as “a mechanism to create an incentive for developing countries to protect, better manage and wisely use their forest resources, contributing to the global fight against climate change. REDD strategies aim to make forests more valuable standing than they would be cut down, by creating a financial value for the carbon stored in trees.” On its face, the idea of “reducing emissions from deforestation” sounds good, especially given that 15 to 25 percent of global CO2 emissions are linked to forest loss. But while the major multilateral institutions, including the UN, the World Bank, and many large environmental organizations, support REDD, many forest-dependent communities, environmental justice advocates, Indigenous Peoples organizations, and global South social movements see REDD as a way for industries in the North to continue polluting, and for forest communities in the Global South to be evicted from or denied access to their lands.

A policy brief from the US Agency for International Development (USAID) on the application of REDD in Mexico notes that “there are a number of problems for which solutions need to be found if [the REDD] mechanism is to achieve its potential. One of these is linked to local difficulties, both in terms of policy integration and application in communities.” Indeed, that is precisely the concern: while the overall concept may be appealing (assuming that creating a market value for non-market commodities like air, carbon dioxide, and forests is not inherently problematic), its application in real-world communities brings many real-world problems.

Welcome to Zapatista territory. Photo: Jeff Conant

The Tangled History of The Lacandon Community Zone

The Lacandon Jungle is the northernmost intact rainforest in Mesoamerica, sitting in a remote region of Chiapas, directly bordering Guatemala. The region is marked by a long and complex history of conflicts over land rights, including a long history of settlement by migrating indigenous and non-indigenous populations, as well as many cases of indigenous peoples being forcibly removed from territories they see as their home. Key to understanding the conflict in the region, however, is the story of the historic construction known as “the Lacandon Community”.

For centuries following the collapse of classic Mayan civilization around 900 A.D., the Lacandon jungle – a montane rainforest marked by rugged terrain, snaking turquoise rivers and limitless biodiversity – was largely inaccessible, and too remote to draw much attention from the outside. The original inhabitants, relatives of the Chontal Maya, had been responsible for building the great temples of the region, but were virtually wiped out during the first centuries of the conquest. At the end of the 18th-century, however, a group of indigenous Caribes migrated into the Lacandon from Campeche, northeast of Chiapas. In the course of the 20th century, many other people began to settle there, including colonists, encouraged by government programs to open the jungle, and wave after wave of indigenous peoples escaping from the fincas – the large plantations where they’d been held in indentured servitude for generations.

By the late 1960’s, there were an estimated 30,000 people living in isolated settlements in the Lacandon. This population explosion led to land-related conflicts and an increasing pressure on the rainforest. To halt the migration, the government decided in 1971 to declare a large part of the forest (614,000 hectares) a protected area: the Montes Azules Biosphere Reserve. As tenants and guardians of the area, they appointed the Caribe tribe, erroneously understood to be the region’s original inhabitants, and now designated, by government fiat, as “Lacandones”. At the time, the Lacandon, neé-Caribe, tribe consisted of sixty-six families. These families, along with a few settlements of Tzeltal and Ch’ol settlers, became the new owners of the territory, officially designated “the Lacandon Community.” In order to designate the Lacandon Community, 2000 Tzeltal and Ch’ol families from 26 communities had to be displaced.

These evictions, and the government programs that followed, led to a state of constant tension between the Lacandon Community and the rest of the region’s inhabitants. Several campesino organizations formed throughout the 1970’s to demand redress; among them was an organization called Quiptic ta lecubtesel, whose rallying cry was “No a la brecha Lacandona!,” or, No to the Lacandon border – a specific reference to efforts to demarcate the disputed territory that had been given to the Lacandon Community.

In Amador Hernandez. Photo: Jeff Conant

It was into this jungle of tensions that several militants from northern Mexico arrived in the early ‘eighties, to begin forming what would become the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN). On January 1, 1994, the day the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) went into effect, an armed insurgency broke out, led by the EZLN. The Zapatista movement, “the first Postmodern revolution,” as it became known, brought the world’s attention to the region, and helped spark what would soon be called the “anti-globalization movement” worldwide.

But, while the Zapatistas gained a lot of attention (waning in recent years) due to their strategic use of symbols and their expert handling of communications, few are aware that the Zapatista organization represents the first and only time that six of the seven ethnic groups in Chiapas (all but the Caribe/Lacandon tribe) have united under a common banner – that of opposition to the “brecha lacandona.” Indeed, as often as the Zapatista story has been told, few people outside of Chiapas are aware that this movement, which seemed to appear as if out of nowhere, grew out of the long history of resistance, but specifically out of the indigenous peasant organization Quiptic ta lecubtesel. In this sense, since the very beginning, the Chiapas conflict has been the result of an arbitrary “forest protection” scheme.

While Zapatista communities, like peasant farmers throughout the world, practice a form of swidden agriculture based on opening productive spaces in the forest to plant maize and beans,  they have, since the beginning of their uprising, maintained a strong stance on protecting the jungle from neoliberal development—especially cattle ranching, illegal logging of precious hardwoods like mahogany, expansion of military installations, and exploitation of the eight unexplored oil reserves in the jungle. Perhaps more to the point, the history of Chiapas, like the history of most of the “New World,” is built on successive waves of resource extraction: hardwoods, medicines, and rubber, followed by sugar, coffee, cattle, and petroleum – all of which have done immeasurable damage to the jungle ecosystem. The cheap labor force that allowed this exploitation to occur was provided, in Chiapas, by Tzeltal, Tzotzil, Ch’ol, and Tojolabal indigenous people who were virtually enslaved for centuries to work as peones on the haciendas and latifundios that formed the basis of the New World economy. The communities that make up most of the Zapatista support base, and most of the population of the jungle region of Chiapas – those who are today being expelled yet again from the only lands available to them – are the direct descendents of these enslaved people.

Photo: Jeff Conant

The Lacandon Today

In the forty years since the Lacandon Community was established, the Mexican government has been unable to demarcate the Lacandon Border, despite many attempts. Many of these attempts have involved military efforts by the government of Chiapas to remove settlers, and specifically Zapatista-aligned communities, from the territory of the Lacandon Community and the Montes Azules Reserve. On October 18, 2000, then-President Zedillo expropriated 3.5 hectares of the ejido Amador Hernández, a Zapatista-aligned community located precisely on the border of the Reserve, to build new military installations. On July, 4, 2004, the government moved families from the community of San Francisco El Caracol, in the Montes Azules Reserve, to a “new population center” called Santa Martha, in the municipality of Marqués de Comillas. On January 23, 2005, 160 Tzeltal families were displaced from Montes Azules to the pre-planned community of Nuevo Montes Azules, near Palenque. On November 13, 2006, hundreds of armed peasants from the Lacandon Community reportedly attacked seventeen families living in the village of Viejo Velasco Suárez, leaving 4 people dead (including a pregnant woman) and 4 people disappeared, in what entered local mythology as the Massacre of Viejo Velasco. On August 18, 2007, a joint police and military operation evicted 39 families from the communities of Buen Samaritano and San Manuel, also in Montes Azules.

Now, with the promise of financing under REDD, work is underway again to delineate the “brecha lacandona”. While there are many other potential sites for REDD-related projects throughout Chiapas and throughout Mexico, all worth keeping a close eye on, the historic tensions in the Lacandon region make the reopening of la brecha lacandona a case of particular concern.

As I traveled with my colleague Orin Langelle throughout the region over the past two weeks, signs of la brecha were legion. On March 19, Juan Francisco Leo Durán, a federal government topographer with the Secretary of Agrarian Reform working at the archeological zone of Bonampak, told me that the demarcation was nearing completion, with all but 80 kilometers left to delineate.

A Lacandon jungle reserve. Photo: Jeff Conant

“That 80 km,” he said, “lies in the region of the cañadas, where the EZLN communities are.”

The next day, on March 20, the Governor of Chiapas, Juan Sabines, paid a high profile visit to Frontera Corazal, a population center of the Lacandon Community, to deliver the first REDD payment of 2000 pesos to each landholder, and to stage a photo opp. Mexican newspaper La Jornada reported that this was the first visit of a governor to the community of eleven thousand people, mostly indigenous Ch’oles, since Sabines’s father, a former governor, paid a visit in 1980. In the La Jornada article, based on a press release from the State government, Governor Sabines is quoted as saying, “After thirty years, we are here to respond to the needs of Frontera Corozal, and we are doing it by way of this program, REDD +, that we have initiated in the seven reserves of the Lacandon jungle.”

“Before eleven thousand inhabitants,” the article says, “Juan Sabines Guerrero made it clear that payment for environmental services is a project in support of life, and that their children and their grandchildren will thank them, because from this they will live; they’ll receive money to care for the forest.”

The article concludes, “The State government authorized a monthly payment; however, this is merely to allow the completion of the forest inventory so that [members of the Lacandon Community] can access federal and international funds, as well as complement these funds with projects like agricultural conversion outside the reserve with species such as oil palm and rubber.”

While the members of the Lacandon Community are the beneficiaries of both the monthly REDD payment and access to vast territory, such benefits come at a high cost. In the words of Miguel Angél García, Coordinator of the  Chiapan NGO Maderas del Pueblo, “Of all the ethnic groups in Chiapas, the one that has suffered the greatest abuse of their rights are the Lacandones; they’ve been robbed of their history, of their identity, and of their dignity, and they’ve been turned into walking folkloric entities. There’s nothing worse than that.”

Further, García explains, the monthly payments for forest protection go to only about 600 landholders; as the next generation comes up with no possibility of planting to feed their families, and with no options for employment besides tourism and managing plantations of African palm, what it means for the Lacandon culture is all too clear.

In Amador Hernandez. Photo: Jeff Conant

Amador Hernández: A Village on the Edge

On March 23, I traveled with photographer Orin Langelle and two local videographers to Amador Hernández, a village of about 1500 people that lies on the border of the Lacandon Community – and the site of the previously mentioned expropriation of land, as well as a site of intense military interest during the hot years of the Zapatista uprising in the late ‘nineties. On arrival, we learned that the community had received a government advisory just a few days previous, announcing that a demarcation team would come through soon. Residents of Amador Hernández told me that their best planting land lay within the Lacandon Community, and that without it they would be unable to grow enough food to support themselves. They also said that, a year earlier, all medical services, including vaccinations, had been cut off to the community, in what they believed was an attempt to force them to move or negotiate. Several elderly people and children had died due to lack of medical attention. It turned out that this village, and a few small outlying settlements, were the only communities left that had not capitulated to the brecha Lacandona.

At the same time, those communities that had negotiated for resettlement, were beginning to protest that the terms of their resettlement were hostile and abusive. The day before we arrived in Amador Hernández, on March 22, the residents of Nuevo Montes Azules issued a public denouncement condemning the conditions of their resettlement. In their statement, they say:

“On February 4, 2005, seven communities that were located in the Lacandon Jungle, in the Montes Azules Biosphere Reserve, were relocated in the municipality of Palenque. We accepted the offer of relocation due to the fact that, in the process of negotiations, the government of the state of Chiapas assured us that the lands we would be given were in perfect state, that our land title was assured, that the houses were well-constructed, that our electricity would be subsidized, that we would receive good educational and health services, potable drinking water, and modern systems of sewage and drainage. They offered us a dream, but they gave us a nightmare. As we were moved to the new location, we were threatened that if we returned to our former home in the jungle, we would be arrested and taken to jail; those who refused to leave were forcibly removed.”

The denuncia goes on to describe the living conditions in Nuevo Montes Azules: “We live in utter abandonment, with grave health problems and insecurity. Our houses are too small for our families, they have no foundations, the roofs are badly built, and the walls are collapsing due to the poor construction. When there is wind, our houses tremble.” The water and sanitation systems have failed, there are neither medicines nor medical personnel in the health center, and the land is too compacted to grow anything. When it rains, the land floods, and further deteriorates the houses.

To the residents of Amador Hernández, resisting the brecha Lacandona means refusing to accept the nightmare of Nuevo Montes Azules.

African palm plantation, Marques de Comillas, Chiapas. Photo: Jeff Conant

The Broader Context of Economic Development in Chiapas

Many NGOs in Chiapas support REDD, while many more criticize and resist the program. Of those who support it, with whom I was able to talk, there was agreement that any REDD program would have to be developed slowly, with community engagement and participation.

“There is no REDD project currently in operation in Chiapas,” a representative of the Mexican NGO Pronatura told me. The Chiapas office of Conservation International, on the other hand, said they are working on REDD-related project in the southern Sierra Madre, in the coffee-rich areas around the National Park El Triunfo, which the global conservation group manages. When asked about the government REDD program, those I spoke with generally refused to comment, or indicated that the government was moving ahead with its own REDD program, and that this would surely be a topic for discussion in upcoming meetings.

Whatever the case with REDD itself – which, even its proponents agree, is a vanishingly complex set of policy initiatives that must be handled with great care – delineating forest reserves in Chiapas in order to place them into the carbon market is pouring salt in old wounds. Further, the growth of carbon-sequestration projects in Chiapas can only be understood as part of a massive wave of economic development that is sweeping the state and the region, accompanied by displacement, conflict, and deepening marginalization.

Among these intertwined developments are the rapid expansion of African palm and Jatropha plantations for biofuel production (Governor Sabines made the first biofuel-powered flight from Mexico City to Chiapas on Friday, April 1), numerous dams and mining concessions, and the dubious resettlement centers known as “sustainable rural cities”.  These so-called sustainable cities include sixteen pre-fabricated housing developments planned precisely at the locations of strategic resource extraction and land conversion (with the sad case of Nuevo Montes Azules considered to be the first trial effort, followed by two more UN-backed efforts, Nuevo Juan Grijalva and Santiago El Pinar). Also under development is an effort to further exploit the Mayan history of the state for tourism; a superhighway under construction designed to link major tourist centers and Mayan archeological zones has led to violent conflicts in the communities of Mitzitón and Bachajón, where several people have been killed and hundreds arrested for attempting to block the development. All of these development projects run roughshod over autonomous indigenous territories.

"Rural city: Santiago El Pinar" Photo: Jeff Conant

Two decades after the Zapatistas put Chiapas on the global map of resistance, the region is again coming to represent all of the conflicts and tensions of arbitrary economic development. Such development – turning land, life, and livelihoods into market commodities for the benefit of global elites – continues to be antithetical to the needs and desires, indeed, to the cosmovision, of most of the residents of this, Mexico’s poorest and most indigenous state.

Comments Off on A Broken Bridge to the Jungle: The California-Chiapas Climate Agreement Opens Old Wounds

Filed under REDD

Burning Forests to Save the Climate? Side Event Tonight 8:15pm

Global Justice Ecology Project Media Alert              2 December, 2010

Burning Forests to Save the Climate?

COP16 SIDE EVENT: Thursday 2 December, 20:15, Cancunmesse, Sandia Room

Large Scale Bioenergy, REDD and GMO Trees

(Sponsored by Global Justice Ecology Project and BiofuelWatch)

The scaling up of industrial wood-based bioenergy in Europe and North America and the promotion of REDD, biochar and GMO trees in climate mitigation schemes will have serious impacts on forests, forest dependent peoples and the climate.

A panel of experts from Global Justice Ecology Project, BiofuelWatch, Global Forest Coalition and Friends of the Earth Brazil will discuss the social and ecological implications of simultaneously attempting to reduce emissions from deforestation while creating a massive new demand for wood to produce electricity and liquid fuels.

Speakers include:

Camila Moreno, Friends of the Earth Brazil

Anne Petermann, Global Justice Ecology Project

Deepak Rughani, Global Forest Coalition

Rachel Smolker, BiofuelWatch

Contact:        Anne Petermann, +52.998.167.8131

Comments Off on Burning Forests to Save the Climate? Side Event Tonight 8:15pm

Filed under Uncategorized

Capitalism to Save Biodiversity?

–Anne Petermann, Global Justice Ecology Project Executive Director and North American Focal Point for the Global Forest Coalition.

Today’s blog post was inspired by two side events at COP-10 today.  The
first was entitled, “The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB):
Mainstreaming the economics of Nature.”  The lead presenter was Pavan
Sukhdev, Study leader — TEEB and Special Adviser and Head — Green
Economy Initiative UNEP

The second was called REDD: Who Benefits and Who Pays, and very critically
explained the social and ecological impacts of REDD.  The model of REDD,
as a scheme of payment for ecosystem services, is one of the main models
for TEEB.

There were some very fascinating statements made by the presenters at the
TEEB side event.  A selection of those include:

• TEEB is about economic solutions, not market solutions, but uses the
market as a tool. [!??!]

• Nature belongs to everyone and to no one, but must be “captured” to save
it.

• What nature provides is invisible: we must make nature’s values visible.

• Countries must inventory their “natural wealth” since “You cannot manage
what you do not measure.”

• 10-20% of a country’s GDP is in “ecosystem services.”

• “Most of the benefits [from TEEB] will flow to the rural poor.”

• “Ecosystem services are a lifeline for the poor.”

TEEB recommendation: Within the UNFCCC process, REDD+ should be
accelerated for implementations: pilot projects, and capacity building in
developing countries.    “We’re Working toward Cancun where there WILL be
a REDD+ agreement” [emphasis added–Note: REDD is still extremely
controversial and has not yet been agreed upon in the UN Climate
Convention]

“Cancun will be significant opportunity for TEEB and mainstreaming the
economics of nature.”

—–

These people are serious.  They want to develop a whole new “Green Economy.”

But while they natter on and on about how this will protect biodiversity,
they neither explain exactly how this is the case, nor how Indigenous
Peoples’ rights fit into the picture.  Indigenous Peoples’ lands, on the
other hand, are those lands globally that are richest in biodiversity.

But rather than ensuring Indigenous communities have control over their
lands so that they can continue to caretake the lands on which they
depend, the TEEB theory is that we have to put a dollar value on nature
and put it in the market, if we want it to be conserved.  And as Tom
Goldtooth, Executive Director of Indigenous Environmental Network points
out, assigning an economic value to something implies ownership, and
property is a concept that contradicts traditional Indigenous
cosmovisions.

There is also no consideration to the root causes of biodiversity loss.
We are somehow going to magically end biodiversity loss while doing
nothing to reduce consumption [the things we consume, by the way, start
out as natural resources, i.e. biodiversity].

So TEEB, therefore, can be seen as a red herring that is designed to
distract us from the real drivers of biodiversity loss. It waves magical
equations in our faces to lead us into the land of economic fairy tales.

So here’s how I see TEEB playing out:

Natural ecosystems will be assigned a dollar value.  The economic law of
supply and demand says that as more natural ecosystems are destroyed by
unsustainable global consumption (which is not being addressed by TEEB),
those ecosystems will go up in value.  Investors, being the profit-savvy
bunch they are, will figure this out pretty quickly.

Therefore, TEEB will cause the already frightening global land grab to
accelerate–perhaps even exponentially.  The Indigenous Peoples and the
world’s poor who live in these ecosystems often do not have clear title to
their lands.  TEEB will likely result in them being marginalized even
further, and even displaced from their lands.  And this displacement will
be justified by blaming these rural poor communities for biodiversity
loss.  The World Bank, for example, blames poverty for 40% of global
forest destruction.  How can you protect biodiversity unless you kick out
the humans?

Under TEEB, the “captor” of an ecosystem will have the right to demand
compensation for leaving that biodiversity intact.  And if TEEB follows
the REDD model, the amount of money demanded for NOT destroying
biodiversity will have to be equal to the profit that COULD have been made
from doing so.  Where exactly will all of this money come from?  And what
if nobody pays?  Then the captor would be free to sell that ecosystem to
the highest bidder.  For logs, for pharmaceuticals, for monocultures, for
soy fields, whatever will make the biggest profit.

This is, after all, the essence of Capitalism and why it is so dangerous
and stupid to put nature into the market.  Capitalism is about maximizing
profits.  Investors will get their financial return one way or the other,
regardless of the consequences.  If there is any lesson that we can draw
from the financial crisis, that is it.

This quote by the head of TEEB gives an idea of the mentality of its
architects:

“Economics is merely weaponry.  The direction you choose to shoot is the
ethical question.”

Unfortunately, with regard to nature, there is no way to predict how that
weapon will be used.  The Precautionary Approach (enshrined in the CBD)
should mean we do not put nature in the sights of that weapon to start with…

Comments Off on Capitalism to Save Biodiversity?

Filed under Biodiversity, Posts from Anne Petermann

UN Convention on Biological Diversity Meets in Japan to Decide How to Enhance Corporate Profits Through Marketing of Biodiversity

by Anne Petermann, Executive Director, Global Justice Ecology Project and North American Focal Point of Global Forest Coalition

Governments from all over the world are gathering in Nagoya, Japan for the next two weeks to discuss the creation of a new 10 year plan for “biodiversity conservation” at the UN Convention on Biological Diversity’s tenth bi-annual Conference of the Parties (COP-10) though the development of a “green economy.”

Activists, non-governmental organizations and Indigenous Peoples from around the globe are also participating in COP-10 to ensure that these strategies created to supposedly protect biodiversity focus on enhancing the rights of peoples with biodiversity-rich lands and do not impact negatively on biodiversity or these peoples by forcing them into the free market.

“There’s so much at stake here for the world’s small scale farmers, fishers and Indigenous Peoples.  They’re at the frontlines of preserving biodiversity and knowledge of that diversity,” said Chee Yoke Ling of Third World Network.

COP-10 is also drawing increased attention due to its attempt to collaborate with the UN Climate Convention on schemes such as REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation).  REDD has been highly controversial because of its aim to put forests into the carbon market and to use forests to offset industrial emissions in the North.  Indigenous Peoples around the world have been highly critical of REDD due to the fact that it is already leading to massive land grabs by corporations who see the future economic return from controlling large areas of forests.  This has led to the displacement of the very communities that protected those forests.

COP-10 will also look at the impacts on forests from other climate mitigation strategies, such as biofuels and bioenergy.  The rapid advance of biofuels as a supposed solution to climate change, for example, has led to the widespread conversion of forests into biofuel crops–which has worsened climate change and caused huge losses of biodiversity.  The growing demand for wood to burn for electricity production is also driving destruction of native forests and is even being used as an excuse for the commercialization of fast-growing genetically engineered trees, all of which will also worsen climate change, not to mention devastate biodiversity.  Profit-making and protection of biodiversity are directly opposed and can never be reconciled.

Because of this focus on climate strategies, however, COP-10 is being considered a crucial step on the road to Cancun (where the UN Climate Conference will take place in December).

“New and Innovative?”

Another highly controversial piece of the negotiations in Nagoya will be the creation of “new and innovative” financial mechanisms for biodiversity protection.

In particular, the CBD is taking failed models created by the UN Climate Convention for use in biodiversity conservation.  One such model is the carbon market.  By putting a monetary value on biodiversity, as was done with carbon, the idea is there will be more incentive to protect it.   Carbon markets, however, have done nothing to curb carbon emissions, and are rampant with crime, corruption and incompetance.  Biodiversity is even harder to measure than carbon and creating a market in it will be utterly ineffective in protecting it.

The CBD Alliance points out, “the move toward market approaches is about privatizing and commodifying peoples’ commons and bypassing governance systems in the South, in order to achieve ‘northern style’ conservation.”  Northern style conservation refers to the NGO-Imperialist model of “protecting” land by kicking out the communities that live there.

The mechanisms for putting biodiversity into the markets include the Business and Biodiversity Offsets Program (BBOP), which is being overseen by Conservation International, and the Green Development Mechanism–modeled after the disastrous Clean Development Mechanism of the UN Climate Convention.  Both of these models will enhance the ability of corporations to destroy biodiversity by allowing them to purchase so-called “biodiversity offsets.”  The main goal of biodiversity offsets is to continue business as usual while pretending to be green, which is why BBOP members include Rio Tinto mining company, Shell and Chevron.

Biodiversity offsets justify, and will escalate, destruction of biodiversity.  Biodiversity offsets allow a company like International Paper to clearcut a native forest in one place as long as they ‘protect’ one somewhere else.  Biodiversity offsets result in a net loss of biodiversity.  The offset model–whether carbon or biodiversity–goes completely against science and common sense.

But then common sense has never been a real strong point of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity…

Note: Anne Petermann will be blogging from Nagoya throughout the first week of the COP-10 for the Climate Connections blog: http://climatevoices.wordpress.com

Comments Off on UN Convention on Biological Diversity Meets in Japan to Decide How to Enhance Corporate Profits Through Marketing of Biodiversity

Filed under Bioenergy / Agrofuels, Posts from Anne Petermann

USSF: Tar Sands and the Boreal Forests

Clayton Thomas-Muller of IEN begins the Tar Sands Peoples Movement Assembly. Photo: Petermann/GJEP

Report from the Tar Sands Peoples’ Movement Assembly (PMA) at the USSF, Wednesday, June 23, 2010

By Anne Petermann, Global Justice Ecology Project

The Tar Sands Gigaproject represents the future of fossil fuel exploitation.  As petroleum becomes harder to access, business as usual dictates that the petroleum industry go to greater and more extreme lengths to suck out the final remains of global oil reserves.  From the depths of oceans to the petroleum trapped in the soil of the tar sands of Alberta, literally no stone should go unturned.  This means that in the name of oil extraction the boreal forests unfortunate enough to grow over the tar sand deposits will have to be removed.

We’re talking about forests over an area the size of Florida.  Forests that are part of the second largest forest carbon sink in the world.  We’re talking about the unimaginably toxic impacts on the aboriginal communities that have lived in and with these forests since time immemorial.  As person after person testified during the Indigenous Environmental Network’s Tar Sands PMA, the tar sands have killed people slowly and painfully in the tar sands project areas, in the communities where the oil is refined, and in the communities where the pipelines are located.  The tar sands, as one grandmother explained, “are a monster.”  And the pipelines are planned to head all the way to the coast of New England for export around the world.

Per barrel of synthetic tar sands oil:

4-6 barrels of water poisoned

4 tons of earth removed

And just to add insult to injury, much of this tar sands oil is being used to fuel the U.S. war on Iraq. (the US military, by the way, is the largest single user of fossil fuels on the planet)

I think at this point, we’re all clear that climate change means we need to end the use of fossil fuels….like, yesterday.  The horrific oil spill in the Gulf and the highly disturbing  footage of its toll which rolls in daily, are merely the latest and most extreme wake up call.

But instead, the trend of business as usual refuses to budge.  It is moving in two distinct, yet intertwined directions: extreme fossil fuel development (such as the tar sands and deep water ocean drilling) and large-scale development of fossil fuel alternatives—both of which massively threaten communities and ecosystems, and both of which will devastate forests and worsen the climate crisis.

Keeping forests standing, as it turns out, is both key toward stabilizing the climate, and a key part of the transformation toward the better world we’re all working for.  And yet these forests are under more threat than ever.

To understand this and put it into context, let me first take you to the World Forestry Congress which took place in Buenos Aires in October 2009.

The World Forestry Congress is a major gathering of timber industry executives, foresters and their non-governmental organization (NGO) lackies that happens every six years to evaluate trends in forestry and how best to exploit forests and maximize profits.  Indigenous Peoples have very little role here.  This is where the ruling class whites figure out the future of forests… and in turn, the role of those forests in filling their bank accounts.  And what came out of this, the thirteenth World Forestry Congress, was positively chilling.

The twin strategies of the WFC were: REDD (the UN and World Bank scheme to supposedly “Reduce Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation”) and wood-based bioenergy promotion, both to be sold to an unwitting public as components of climate mitigation.  Whoa, you say, how can an industry designed to clearcut forests profit from a scheme called “reducing emissions from deforestation”?  And how can they possibly promote it at the same time as trying to exponentially increase the demand for wood through wood-based bioenergy development?  And how could that be considered good for climate change? And why on earth would big NGOs like The Nature Conservancy and World Wildlife Fund and Conservation International support this nonsense?  And why is the Forest Stewardship Council—which supposedly carries the banner of sustainable forestry—behind it too?

Weelllll…

The newest trend in marketing is Green.  Green, green, green.  Everybody’s gotta be green.  British Petroleum became “Beyond Petroleum”—whoops…not quite.  So if ya wanna continue business as usual, you have to paint it green.  Doesn’t matter if the paint is toxic…

But the climate crisis and the Gulf oil spill have opened the doors to enable the timber industry, through a bizarre and twisted logic, to claim the front lines of the renewable energy debate and climate mitigation strategies.

And if the global public is demanding action on climate change and the U.S. public wants to have its cake and eat it too (in other words continue our unsustainable lifestyle but pretend we’ve done our part), then the dual strategy of the timber industry makes perfect sense.

You heard Obama in the Oval Office talking about the Gulf oil spill.  We need alternative energy.  Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but he ain’t talkin’ windmills and solar panels.  He’s talking nukes, “clean coal” and cutting down trees—for electricity, for liquid fuels, for butane, and whatever else they can come up with.

And this finally brings us back to Canada’s boreal forest—by way of the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement.

In this agreement, timber corporations and big NGOs got together to decide the fate of large expanses of boreal forest on Indigenous lands.  Hailed as a great victory for the forests and especially the dwindling herds of woodland caribou, the agreement, in reality, is not worth the paper on which it’s printed.  Riddled with loopholes big enough to drive logging trucks through, the agreement is designed to reframe the Canadian forest industry as climate-friendly.

It is designed to shift the boreal forest into bioenergy production, and to provide the groundwork to claim carbon offsets for the forests that don’t—for the moment—get cut.

One of the loopholes that pops up repeatedly is the fact that industry will be allowed to break the agreement for the sake of “forest health”.  In other words, they will use the excuse of pine bark beetle infestation to clearcut at will.

This agreement is loaded with forest industry-speak.  It goes on and on about how their “sustainable forest management” will be governed by the guidelines of “all three certification schemes” (including those created by and for corporations like International Paper). This means these guidelines will be crap.

So to sum up, industry is using this agreement to greenwash their plans to log the boreal forest for woodchips for bioenergy and “bioproducts” (i.e. replacing fossil fuels to make plastics, chemicals, textiles, etc) and to make it sound “climate friendly”.  And I can pretty well guarantee that they will also try to fit this under REDD or a similar forest carbon offset scheme to make money on both ends—as was heavily promoted to timber industry execs at the World Forestry Congress.

Which brings us back to the Tar sands Gigaproject.  The tar sands project is causing the country of Canada to have some of the fastest growing greenhouse gas emissions in the world.  How convenient if there is simultaneously development of an agreement that supposedly protects vast expanses of boreal forest.  Which, quite coincidentally, could be claimed as offsetting those very unfortunate emissions being caused by the Tar sands.

But this, my friends, is just the tip of the iceberg.  They’re all one cascading market mechanism….forest offsets, biodiversity offsets (yes, you heard me right), the wood-based “bioeconomy” and  “bioenergy”…like one great ‘bailout’ for the climate, but with no real benefits.  And this market mechanism force is snowballing in the UN Climate process, the UN Biodiversity process and in no other than the World Bank and of course at the powerful urging of industrialized nations, as well as wannabe countries like Brazil.  It is one scary future scenario.  But more on that later.

To learn more about this bizarre future for the world’s forests, come to our workshop “Forests and Climate Change” which has merged with the workshop on biomass and the bioeconomy in cobo hall, d3-21, Thursday, June 24, 1-5pm.

To learn more about the tar sands gigaproject, go to: http://www.ienearth.org

Comments Off on USSF: Tar Sands and the Boreal Forests

Filed under Climate Change, Climate Justice, Indigenous Peoples, Pollution, Posts from Anne Petermann, Tar Sands

There is No One Magic Bullet Solution… So Get Over It!

By Anne Petermann

Blog Post June 7th, 2010

Back home to our little cottage on the lake—back to the sanity of being surrounded by native forest instead of megalomaniacal bureaucrats intent on capitalizing off the rape and plunder of the earth under the auspices of climate mitigation.

First, of course, we had one last stop prior to boarding our respective planes and trains back to sanity—a presentation at the European Parliament in Brussels.

This time it was one of the Ministers of Parliament (MEP) responsible for implementing the European Union’s “renewable energy” target of 20% by 2020 that took issue with our analysis.

Once again it was Deepak’s presentation that was most hotly debated—perhaps because it best showed, through graphic photographs, the wholesale devastation of primeval rainforests for woodchips for export—the direct and indirect result of the EU’s desire to fulfill its renewable energy commitment by burning trees for electricity.

The MEP explained that we had limited choices—wood-based fuels (liquid and electric) or even worse options like nuclear power or large-scale hydroelectricity.  To me this is a false dichotomy.  It is not either burn trees or build nukes or flood rivers.  The solution is to transform the way we live on this earth.  The solution is to find the small-scale truly sustainable alternatives that make sense for each bioregion.  The solutions for Vermont are not going to be the same as the solutions for Belgium.  And the big magic bullet solutions do not exist.  Forget about it.  Technology and the markets are not going to save us from this mess—especially since they have contributed so significantly to it.

The faster we get over the idea of the imaginary single magic solution, the sooner we can dig in to the work at hand.

Here in the United States, the crisis of burning trees for electricity is a little closer to home—especially in those regions that still have some intact forest left—whether primary forest or second growth native forest, these forests are now under the gun.  With plans for new biomass electricity plants popping up all over the place, and with the EU demand for trees leading to increased woodchip exports from the U.S., our forests are under threat like they haven’t been since the continent was first invaded by those white folks who’d already trashed their own forests.

And don’t forget the threat from genetically engineered trees!  Eucalyptus and poplar trees are being avidly engineered to provide better agrofuels (liquid transport fuels) and faster growing biomass.  And it’s the Gulf Coast states where these Franken-eucalyptus plantations are planned to be developed.

So, while it was good to spend time with allies in Europe, and we had many important meetings about international forest policy and GE trees, it was really good to finally get back home to our office in Vermont where we are developing strategies to take on ArborGen and defeat their plans for vast industrial plantations of non-native, invasive, water depleting and flammable eucalyptus trees.

GJEP Co-Director Orin Langelle and I have collectively been working to protect forests and the rights of forest-dependent peoples for close to 50 years.  This is one forest fight that we cannot, we will not, lose.

Comments Off on There is No One Magic Bullet Solution… So Get Over It!

Filed under Climate Change, Climate Justice, GE Trees, Indigenous Peoples, Posts from Anne Petermann, REDD

The Promotion of REDD: The Tentacles Spread

UN Climate Convention to Combine Forces with Biodiversity Convention on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation (REDD) Schemes

By Anne Petermann

As the promotion of REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) intensifies here at the intercessional UN Climate talks in Bonn, Germany, it is both growing in scope (to incorporate more and more uses of land—including agriculture) and expanding to include the other two conventions that arose out of the 1992 Rio Convention—that is the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the UN Convention to Combat Desertification.

This merging became clear at the Oslo conference on REDD hosted by the Norwegian government.  Ahmed Djoghlaf, the Executive Secretary of the CBD sent a statement there about the importance of biodiversity in mitigating climate change. And the second meeting of the Oslo body (called the REDD+ Partnership) will be held in Nagoya, Japan this October immediately prior to the UN CBD COP (Conference of the Parties), which itself takes place only a little over one month before the UN Climate COP in Cancun.

The key role of the CBD COP is spelled out quite clearly in the REDD+ Partnership paper promoting the Nagoya “Ministerial Meeting on Forest Conservation Cooperation and Climate Change.”  The paper states, “Partners recognize that forest conservation provides co-benefits of biodiversity conservation and climate change mitigation, and provides strong political momentum for the success of the CBD COP-10.”

As well, our allies who attended the Subsidiary Body (more UN-speak, sorry) meeting of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, which took place in Nairobi immediately before the Subsidiary Body meeting of the UN Climate Convention here in Bonn, alerted us to some disturbing developments at the CBD.

Two Biodiversity COPs ago, in Curitiba, Brazil in 2006, the CBD COP agreed to start a “Business and Biodiversity” initiative, which was officially launched at the CBD COP in Bonn in 2008.

The CBD has embraced this initiative and is going hog wild with the notion of embracing business and the markets in their policies and initiatives.  In so doing, they are now emulating several of the programs and mechanisms of the UN Climate Conference—especially “offsets” and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).

Offsets and the CDM are two components of the Climate Negotiations and the Kyoto Protocol climate agreement that are the bane of the climate justice movement.  Both are designed to give polluting countries and companies in the Industrialized North the excuse to go on polluting while claiming to mitigate their emissions.  They do this by funding projects in developing countries that supposedly compensate in some way for the pollution they are releasing.

Ironically, most of the time these projects are usually extremely destructive and very dirty.  They can include, for example, large-scale hydro-electric projects that drown forests and displace thousands, and they can even include new dirty industries like cement plants, as long as those plants are just a little bit cleaner than they would have been if they did not receive funding from the CDM.

Then there are also offset projects that include so-called “green carbon” (good grief) projects like monoculture timber plantations that supposedly store carbon to “offset” that emitted by industry.  The fact that this offset model has no scientific basis in actually addressing climate change is irrelevant.  It sounds nice and makes a lot of money, and that’s all that matters.

Ah, capitalism…

So the UN Convention on Biological Diversity has looked at these bizarre, profit-oriented and ecologically destructive models and said, “yeah baby! Gimme some of that!”

And thus was born the “Green Development Mechanism” or GDM—the UN CBD equivalent of the CDM (yes, I’m afraid its true).  But that’s only the beginning of their complete loss of sanity.

The CBD has also come up with something they like to call (I’m totally serious) BBOP.  Yes, BBOP—as in Elvis Presley.  As in BBOP a-loo-bop.  But what makes this one such a delight is what it stands for—the Business and Biodiversity Offset Program.  ‘Wait,’ you’re thinking.  ‘Biodiversity offsets?  This can’t possibly be for real!’  Ah, but it is.  The CBD seriously intends to start a biodiversity offset program to allow business to continue to destroy biodiversity as long as they offset it with another project somewhere else.

For activists in the U.S. this is not completely new.  There is a similar program there that has been in use for some time.  And isn’t the U.S. just the ideal role model for biodiversity protection?  You betcha!

By way of an example of how this has worked in the U.S., Walmart might be given a permit to build a new store in the middle of a supposedly protected wetland.  But in order to do this, they would have to pay to construct a new wetland somewhere else.  No really, that’s how it works.

So basically the UN has looked at some of the stupidest and worst models in the Capitalist world and incorporated them into their conventions.  REDD, for example: paying some of the world’s biggest destroyers of forests to stop destroying some of them.  Not only is this model completely fucking stupid, it is a clear reflection of the free trade model that took off in the 1990s and sought to force national governments to pay corporations their lost profits if they were prevented from profiting from “trade barriers” such as laws against pollution or violating the rights of workers.  Except this time the forest-destroyers are holding the world hostage by saying, ‘pay us or fry.’

So what this means is that the activists following biodiversity loss and those following Climate will need to come together to create collaborative strategies and plans to both oppose these crazy market-based death schemes and organize alternatives—real alternatives—peoples’ alternatives—non-market alternatives.

That is our challenge.

Comments Off on The Promotion of REDD: The Tentacles Spread

Filed under Climate Change, Climate Justice, GE Trees, Indigenous Peoples, Posts from Anne Petermann, Water

Anne Petermann Reporting from London

Another World is Absolutely Essential

By Anne Petermann

Today’s blog post is going to be a short one since I am on a public computer.

Today the tour moved on from The Hague to London.  While the chunnel was a
bit intimidating on the train, we arrived to sunny and–for London–warm
weather.

The conversation on the train ride with colleagues Simone Lovera of Global
Forest Coalition, Mary Lou Malik of Focus on the Global South and Fiu
Elisara of Samoa ranged from strategies for dealing with the problem of
NGOs and foundations that have bought into the REDD scam and carbon
markets in general; to our plans for the evening in London–one of the few
unscheduled chunks of time.

Fiu decided to retire, not having quite gotten used to the twelve hour
time difference, while Simone, Mary Lou and I are planning to connect with
another colleague of theirs for some stimulating conversation.

Our next event is tomorrow and it is a forum with other organizations from
around the region to discuss the dangers of wood-based agro-energy and
genetically engineered trees and what we can do about it.  There are
likely to be a few organizations that we are going to have to convince,
since so many organizations are so desperate to offer up solutions to the
climate crisis–and unfortunately many of them will only look for
solutions that allow business as usual to continue with as little change
as possible.

We, on the other hand, understand that this is not feasible.  Climate
change will mean very dramatic changes that will be most unpleasant unless
we choose as humans to make changes ourselves by choice.  This is what we
are working toward at Global Justice Ecology Project.  Creating alliances,
developing analysis and educating the public to make these changes
possible.

For another world is not only possible, it is absolutely essential.

From London,

Anne Petermann

Comments Off on Anne Petermann Reporting from London

Filed under Climate Change, Climate Justice, GE Trees, Posts from Anne Petermann