Defender la "Madre Tierra" en Cochabamba -- declaración de Forum Social Mundial

Madre Tierra: música de Macaco

Defender la "Madre Tierra" en Cochabamba

(version en portuguès en bajo)

Mayores precisiones en Porto Alegre 28 de enero 2010 sobre la propuesta boliviana en la Conferencia sobre el cambio climático de Copenhage.

En la noche del 18 al 19 de diciembre, en Copenhage, pocos gobiernos se opusieron abiertamente al texto presentado por los EEUU, China Brasil, India y Sudáfrica. Entre ellos Bolivia, representada por Evo Morales, presidente ampliamente reelegido en su país hacía apenas un mes, quién condenó firmemente dicho acuerdo tanto en su forma – por haber sido discutido en un pequeño comité sin respetar los procedimientos de trabajo de las Naciones Unidas –como por su contenido: un texto más reducido con relación a las recomendaciones del GIEC sin ningún compromiso imperioso y sin reales garantías de financiación para los países más pobres.

Algunos días después, las redes de militantes recibían una invitación firmada por Evo Morales para una “Conferencia Mundial de los Pueblos sobre el cambio climático y los derechos de la Madre Tierra” a realizarse en Cochabamba entre el 19 y el 22 de abril de 2010. Existe un sitio web: http://cmpcc.org/ pero aunque la experiencia boliviana despertó muchas esperanzas e interés entre los movimientos populares aún existían muchos interrogantes sobre la naturaleza y el objetivo de dicha conferencia. Pablo Solon, embajador de Bolivia ante las Naciones Unidas, viejo militante y asiduo concurrente a los Foros sociales vino a Porto Alegre facilitando la comprensión de la propuesta boliviana.

Ante el fracaso de Copenhage y la presión de los grandes países para convencer a la mayoría de los gobiernos, el firmar a pesar de todo el texto surgido de la Conferencia sobre el clima, Bolivia decide tomar la iniciativa y construir una relación de fuerzas capaz de modificar la agenda internacional.

La idea es original: invitar ampliamente y sin ningún condicionamiento a todos los gobiernos del mundo, a las instituciones internacionales, a los científicos y a todos los movimientos sociales y ONG para trabajar un texto final para encontrar puntos de consenso y tratar temas que quedaron por debatir.

Gran cantidad de gobiernos han anunciado ya su asistencia, incluidos América del Norte y la Unión Europea, de acuerdo con los objetivos bolivianos de reunir a numerosos jefes de estado y muchos ministros. Siguiendo la misma lógica los bolivianos esperan contar con la presencia de los organismos de las Naciones Unidas, aunque queda por definir aspectos relacionados con sus niveles de representación, lo mismo que para los gobiernos. Muchos movimientos sociales y científicos han demostrado ya su interés y confirmado algunos su asistencia.

La conferencia tiene seis objetivos:

- analizar las causas estructurales que provocan los cambios climáticos y proponer soluciones que permitan el bienestar de la humanidad en armonía con la naturaleza.

- discutir y decidir la formulación de un proyecto de “Declaración Universal de los derechos de la Madre Tierra”,

- discutir propuestas para un nuevo acuerdo en el marco de la ONU,

-trabajar en la organización de un Referéndum mundial de los Pueblos sobre los cambios climáticos.

- avanzar en la formulación de un plan de acción para la creación de un tribunal internacional para la Justicia climática.

- definir las estrategias de acción y de movilización frente al cambio climático y sobre los derechos de la “Madre Tierra”

Los debates se hallarán organizados por temas, algunos de ellos derivados directamente de las discusiones planteadas en el seno de la ONU, otros con un enfoque más general. Han sido identificados seis temas (ver más detalles en http://cmpcc.org/), pero se agregaran otros hasta un límite de veinte relacionado con la capacidad del espacio y de traducción disponibles ( que estará asegurada en inglés y español). El objetivo de los debates será redactar declaraciones cortas que se incluirán en el texto final, debates que comenzarán a partir de febrero a través de intercambios de correo electrónico. Junto a estos debates temáticos tendrán lugar una serie de actividades auto-organizadas y de conferencias científicas

Se recomienda finalmente conformar comités nacionales de preparación de la conferencia, lo que permitirá la eventual creación de un movimiento o de una red después de Cochabamba.

Pueden realizarse desde ya, todas las objeciones que fueren necesarias frente a esta propuesta. Los tiempos son muy cortos e ir a Cochabamba es caro en tiempo y dinero. Una mezcla semejante entre representantes de movimientos sociales, de gobierno y de instituciones internacionales va a ocasionar problemas a estructuras que tienden a conservar la mayor autonomía posible. La organización misma de la conferencia, sin comité organizador, tiene la ventaja de no herir susceptibilidades (quién está y quién no) pero planteará inevitablemente problemas de legitimidad durante la conferencia en sí misma. Nada será posible en el plano internacional para los movimientos sociales sin internet y correo electrónico, pero todo el mundo sabe lo difícil que es organizar estos debates con esos instrumentos. Etc.,etc.

Pero al mismo tiempo queda claro aquí en Porto alegre, que todos los movimientos sociales de América Latina estarán representados en Cochabamba, como también numerosas delegaciones de otros continentes conscientes de la urgencia de conformar un frente lo más amplio posible para imponer verdaderas medidas, en el plano internacional frente al cambio climático. Y todos sabemos que en períodos de incertidumbre y de transición como los que atravesamos, las iniciativas que pueden aparecer como las más locas y más irrealizables son las que a veces cambian el curso de la historia. ..

Christophe Aguiton y Nicola Bullard

Porto Alegre, 28 de enero de 2010

Defendendo a Mãe Terra em Cochabamba

Um informe de Porto Alegre sobre a iniciativa boliviana sobre a mudança climática

Na noite de 18 para 19 de dezembro, em Copenhague, um punhado de governos opôs-se ao texto apresentado pelos Estados Unidos, China, Brasil, Índia e África do Sul. Entre estes poucos, a Bolívia – representada pelo presidente Evo Morales, que tinha sido reeleito apenas alguns dias antes por uma maioria esmagadora – condenou fortemente tanto o processo (o texto foi discutido em pequenos grupos fora da ONU) como o seu conteúdo, que ficou muito longe de qualquer coisa próxima às recomendações do IPCC, não inclui nenhum limite às emissões ou compromissos de financiamento para o Sul.

Poucos dias depois, o presidente Morales lançou um convite para a Conferência Mundial dos Povos sobre a Mudança Climática e os Direitos da Mãe Terra, em Cochabamba, Bolívia, de 19 a 22 de abril de 2010. Embora a iniciativa de Morales tenha levantado muito interesse e entusiasmo de redes de ativistas através do mundo, há ainda muitas questões sobre a natureza e os objetivos da conferência. Pablo Sólon, embaixador da Bolívia nas Nações Unidas e um veterano do Fórum Social Mundial, veio a Porto Alegre, nos eventos do décimo ano do Fórum Social Mundial, para compartilhar informações e reunir apoio para a conferência. Ele passou três horas reunido com ativistas e movimentos de justiça climática e houve uma troca de informações e opiniões muito útil.

Na seqüência do fracasso de Copenhague e da pressão crescente para os governos assinarem o Acordo de Copenhague, a Bolívia acredita que é vital tomar alguma iniciativa imediata para mudar a correlação de forças para deslocar a agenda internacional. A proposta é original: convidar todos os governos, agências da ONU, cientistas, movimentos sociais e ONGs – sem condições – para participar em grupos de trabalho e preparar conclusões e uma declaração final.

Até agora, vários governos indicaram que eles comparecerão, incluindo alguns de países latino-americanos e europeus. O objetivo dos bolivianos é ter vários chefes de estado e um grande número de ministros. Os bolivianos também estão seguros quanto à participação de algumas agências da ONU, mas está em aberto a questão do nível de representação dos governos e das agências da ONU. Muitos ativistas e cientistas mostraram interesse e vários já confirmaram sua participação.

A conferência tem seis objetivos:
- analisar as causas estruturais e sistêmicas da mudança climática e propor medidas efetivas para facilitar o bem-estar de toda a humanidade em harmonia com a natureza.
- discutir e pactar o esboço de uma Declaração Universal dos Direitos da Mãe Terra.
- consensuar propostas para um novo compromisso com o Protocolo de Kyoto e projetos para uma decisão da COP nos Marcos das Nações Unidas para a Mudança Climática, que irão guiar futuras ações daqueles paises que estão engajados de forma duradoura nas negociações sobre mudanças climáticas.
- trabalhar na organização de um referendo mundial popular sobre a mudança climática.
- analisar e delinear um plano de ação para a criação de um Tribunal de Justiça Climática.
- definir estratégias de ação e mobilização em defesa da vida contra a mudança climática e pelos direitos da Mãe Terra.

Até agora foram identificados 16 grupos de trabalho mas outros podem ser acrescentados até o limite de 20 devido aos limites de espaço e tradução (a tradução será somente em espanhol e inglês).

Eles são: causas estruturais; harmonia com a natureza; direitos da Mãe Terra; referendo sobre a mudança climática; Tribunal de Justiça Climática; migrantes e refugiados climáticos; povos indígenas; dívida climática; visão compartilhada; protocolo de Kyoto; adaptação; financiamento; transferência de tecnologia; florestas; perigos do mercado de carbono; estratégias de ação (veja http://cmpcc.org para mais informações)

Os grupos de trabalho prepararão propostas que serão agregadas ao texto final. Os grupos começarão a trabalhar no início de fevereiro por email. Ao lado das questões temáticas, grupos são convidados para auto-organizarem atividades e uma conferência científica também está planejada. Finalmente, os bolivianos estão encorajando a formação de comitês nacionais para preparar a conferência, o que facilitará a criação de um movimento ou uma rede após a conferência.

Muitas objeções podem ser levantadas sobre esta proposta. O tempo é muito curto e viajar a Cochabamba é caro e difícil. Misturar representantes de governos, da agências da ONU, movimentos sociais e ONGs pode criar problemas para muitos dos participantes potenciais que preferem manter sua autonomia. Não há comitê organizador da conferência – o convite vem diretamente de Evo Morales – o que tem a vantagem de evitar debates sobre que faz ou não faz parte do comitê, mas que também cria problemas sobre como a conferência será conduzida. A preparação será feita pela internet, mas todo mundo sabe como é difícil organizar os debates com estes instrumentos e em duas línguas apenas. E assim por diante...

Ao mesmo tempo, ficou claro em Porto Alegre que todos os movimentos sociais da América Latina apoiarão e irão à Cochabamba, bem como muitas delegações de outros continentes, motivados pela necessidade de construir uma grande coalizão global pela justiça climática. E todos sabemos que em períodos de incerteza e transição, como são os que vivemos, iniciativas que podem ser vistas como irrealistas são, de tempos em tempos, aquelas que podem mudar o curso da história.

Christophe Aguiton e Nicola Bullard, Porto Alegre 28 de janeiro de 2010

Urgence Haïti -- par Développement et Paix

voir actualités, photos, témoignages et stratégies de reconstruction sur le site Développement et Paix et la Parole citoyenne de l'ONF.

Speaking truth -- a haiku by Caroline B. Parry

The voice of truth speaks
with one thousand tongues of life:
I hear such richness!

*****
Caroline Balderston Parry is a Quaker, folksinger, festival organizer, world traveller, workshop leader, educator, mother of several noted musicians, and author of Zoomerang a Boomerang (1981), Let's Celebrate (1987), and Eleanora's Diary (1994). See her biography and current work with the Unitarian Church of Montreal.

Why Does Your Fragrance Bother Me? -- by Dorothy Parshall

Don't use perfume around me. Please. Here's the reason.

I’m sorry if this request -- or my behavior - offends you, but the chemicals in fragrance hit my brain like a glass of vodka does a ‘bad drunk’. These volatile chemicals affect my brain directly. They attach to receptors, reducing my ability to think, my coordination, changing my mood.

While ‘under the influence’ I cannot hear or speak properly. It may take me hours to recover. I may have trouble getting home.

It's not just me. 20% of the population suffer noticeably. Many more would notice an improvement in health and mental ability if they stopped using fragrances, perfumes and fresheners. Thank you for your understanding.

From Heartsick to Healthy

I was a hard-working professional ten years ago, the day I was poisoned. It was formaldehyde, a common chemical used to preserve dead bodies, or stop fungus in furnishings. This was in carpeting on a stair. It was brand new, and it stank. By the time I had walked up one flight, I felt as though I were going to collapse. I held onto a desk for support. A co-worker exclaimed, “You’re white as a sheet.” Knowing the cause, I left immediately. The damage, however, was done and will plague me the rest of my life.

My co-worker suggested I attend at the Occupational Health Center . They had no idea what to do. I went twice. The second time, a doctor whose son had been poisoned by drywall chemicals when he renovated his home, suggested I continue to go to a wholistic chiropractor, who had been able to clear enough of the toxins for my brain to function..

The effect of chemicals on the brain can be worse than on the body. The brain is clouded, thinking impaired. You don't realize how much you are affected. The body becomes sensitive to other chemicals. As my friend C---- drove me an hour and a half to the chiropractor, I kept thinking, “Open the window!" But could not get the words from brain to tongue. After my detox, getting in the van to go home I was able to say, “Do you mind if I open the window?” WOW!

I was only just functioning. I had severe ups and downs. I did not realize it at first but a lot of things had changed. Language was severely handicapped. I was hypersensitive to loud noises. They made me angry. I had days when it was a struggle to get up. I was able to do very little and became depressed by my inability to function at my usual high energy level.

After five years: I could not lose 30 excess pounds. Some days I had trouble getting off the sofa, could not turn the pages of a magazine. “I have no life. It isn’t worth living," I told C---. She responded,, “Maybe we better try de-toxing.”

She lived an hour away. Just getting there was an exhausting. She gave me a handful of supplements and a horrible tasting drink. Then she announced, “Now we need to walk for half an hour.” Horrified, I said, “But I can hardly put one foot in front of the other!” But then added bravely, “Alright, one foot after another. I will just keep doing it.” I was desperate. I wanted to be better or die.

So we walked, each with a dog on leash – might as well walk the dogs too, right? I could not do it. She ended up with both the large dogs as I plodded slowly forward. Next a sauna -- oh no! I have always hated heat. When I was a child, summer was a misery. C--- took pity and turned the temperature down to a tolerable level. I survived that first treatment, and four more like it over the next three weeks.

Came the fifth session: Walking the dogs, C---- suddenly said, “I can’t keep up with you!” I claimed it was the dog pulling me. But it wasn't. Miraculously, I had my energy back.

I had the energy of a hyperactive ten year old. Now I understood how the children with whom I was working felt when told to “sit still.”. I was again striding through life instead of dragging myself along. Within five months I lost the excess weight which had plagued me.. My brain worked better. Grace and joy seemed to pour into me until life was full again. I was elated.

I was healthy at last. But de-toxing needs to be repeated. Every time I go into a place full of chemicals (any city), I have to come home and take a detoxing bath. If the exposure has been heavy, I may need to do it again in the morning. My awareness of my energy level lets me know what I need to do.

I will never be able to stop detoxing. I worry about all the others who climbed that stairway. How many of them had symptoms? How many are still suffering from that exposure? Thank you C---- for your support all those rough years. I would never have known what was wrong with me. I would have gone from doctor to doctor without finding help.

Fragrance, anger and noise

The effect of perfume on my brain is immediate. When I am folk dancing, if someone wearing a fragrance is next to me, I lose focus and become unable to do the correct steps, even in a simple dance. I have to move out of range of the odour to recover brain function and continue dancing.

Or I become angry. I don't mean to. It is a direct reaction to the chemicals. All I can do is put distance between myself and the exposure and wait for the anger to subside.

People don't realize this. Reacting to me -- the victim -- they too become angry. This solves nothing. Can we instead cooperate?

Here's an example. I was interviewing a family close to a powder room with commercial "air freshener". After a short time, my eyes could not focus and my brain was foggy. I was struggling to continue. I asked that the "air freshener" be put outside. 15 minutes later, my brain and vision returned to normal.

But some toxins are unknown and odourless. At times, I find myself unable to comprehend the written word.. On the first occasion I read one sentence over and over unable to make sense of it. I finally realized where the problem lay, left the building as quickly as possible, and, after a few minutes, was able to drive home.

On another occasion, a high note on a wind instrument caused a feeling like a knife stabbing into my brain. I staggered away from the dance and as far from the music as possible, my fingers in my ears. I was a wreck from the excruciating pain and had to go home, after sitting in the car for while to recover. I already had tissue in my ears to dampen the sound.

These hypersensitive reactions are known to be caused by chemicals in the environment. Also confusion of sounds: I find it difficult to stay in a room with loud noise.; the noise causes me to feel pain throughout my body. I am frustrated by people who do not speak clearly. I cannot understand verbal language unless it is enunciated clearly. My auditory processing ability has been severely affected by chemicals. I hear ALL the noises and cannot separate them sufficiently to understand what people are saying.

When the Brain Can't Hear

click on image to see details

I want to stress: it is not just me. In North America there are many thousands of environmentally poisoned people. Tomorrow, after an unexpected exposure or a build-up of toxins in your system, it could be you. Or, worse yet, your children. My fear for the children of this earth sometimes causes me to feel very angry. Our children's future is dependent on a safe environment, in their homes, schools and communities.

As a "canary in the coal mine", I had difficulty even convincing my own family that I have this disability. My son was giving me a hard time: "How do you know? You could at least TRY a hearing aid." I explained again. He responded, very softly, "If I talk very softly but clearly will you understand." "Yes, when there is no background noise, I hear and understand every word." He listened! He stopped harassing me! Speaking CLEARLY is what I need.

Teri James Bellis, When the Brain Can't Hear explains brain differences which create auditory processing deficits or disorders. At last, a doctor who understands! It took me 9 years to realize that chemicals affect my ability to understand both oral and written language. I detox constantly but I am constantly exposed to more toxins. When the level in my body gets too high my brain seems to turn off: I often cannot read serious literature. I do NOT need a hearing aid; I need a toxin-free environment. I will keep on reading, in those times when my brain is clear enough to understand. I focus on books about how the brain works, trying to understand and looking for possible strategies that might help.

There is so much I would like the public to know and understand. Sometimes I just have to leave the room. Sometimes I cannot even smell the chemicals but my energy level drops, I feel angry for no apparent reason, or my head aches, I feel nauseous. All these, and more, are symptoms of sensitivity to toxins in the environment.

I hope this will help you understand those of us who are environmentally damaged. Protect your children. Hope that it never happens to you

*****

References

Wikipedia on perfumes. These may include fragrances, essential oils, aroma compounds, fixatives, solvents and their health effects – with footnotes. Reactions (not covered here) have also been reported to balsam of Peru, benzyl alcohol, menthol, toothpastes, gum and perfumes in paper products, sanitary napkins, ostomy pastes, and detergents.
See also body burden, body cleansing; EU draft regulations on fragrances; a hospital’s fragrance-free policy; Environmental Health News.org.
Read and discuss with a qualified doctor: networks for sufferers; Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Syndrome (MCS) and MCS in Wikipedia; and Quackwatch.
Books: Rick Smith and Bruce Lourie, Slow Death by Rubber Duck: How the toxic chemistry of Daily life affects our health (2009); Dr Teri James Bellis, When the Brain Can't Hear: Unraveling The Mystery Of Auditory Processing Disorders (2003); Amilya Antonetti, Why David Hated Tuesdays, a well written book by a mother whose son was born hyper-sensitive and what she did to alleviate the problem.

The great carbon credit con -- by Nadene Ghouri

Excerpts from Nadene Ghouri's investigation for UK Daily Mail Live Magazine 1 Jun 09. Photos: Ash Sweeting. Gujarat Fluorochemicals (GFL) website boasts that it exports to 75 countries, and has a branch plant in China. With World Bank approval, foreign investors have poured $12 billion into Gujarat's 175-mile chemical corridor between Mehsana and Vapi, one of the world's 10 worst-polluted places. Political pull has spared prosecution of polluters. Gujarat's chief minister says carbon credits are "a good business opportunity".

*****

In the fields around this giant chemicals factory in Gujarat, the barren soil smells of paint stripper and the water from the well makes you gag. Radha, a tough, sinewy widow and the only female farmer here, says that the well, which draws from deep groundwater, used to adequately supply the village and surrounding farms. ‘We have plenty of water – but water is the problem,’ she says. As the bucket returns to the top, we can make out a white, almost oily-looking film on the surface of the liquid, which has formed little snowflake shapes.

She scoops up some water and asks us to smell it. It has an odour so acrid it catches in the back of our throats, making us cough. ‘We can’t irrigate our crops with it,’ she says. ‘It’s the water of death. It kills most crops we put it on. A few years ago, I grew spinach, potatoes, lots of different crops. Now… look at my plants. Weak, useless.’

We’re in a field of cotton that should be ready to harvest. But there’s nothing to reap – just a few little tufts that blow mockingly in the breeze. Radha picks up a handful of soil. The surface has a faintly visible white crust, as if talcum powder has been sprinkled over it. Hold it close and it has the same caustic smell as the water, a bit like paint stripper.

Overlooking the fields like a hulking metal skeleton is the factory the villagers claim has polluted their water and land. The plant, owned by Gujarat Fluorochemicals (GFL), produces refrigerant gases for air-conditioning units and fridges. A by-product is a greenhouse gas [one of the worst] called HFC23.... one ton of it is equivalent to 11,700 tons of carbon. Under the UN Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), GFL installed new technology to capture and recycle HFC23.

The technology was provided in 2005 by the UK’s largest chemical and oil corporation, Ineos, formerly part of ICI [Imperial Chemical Industries]. Both GFL and Ineos benefited handsomely. By installing the technology, GFL made €27 million in the last quarter of 2006 – triple its total earnings for the same period the year before due to carbon credits. Ineos was also given a substantial number of credits for helping a company in the developing world cut its emissions, [to "offset" Ineos emissions exceeding] UK government limits....

polluted well in Ranjitnagar

GFL is part of a worldwide carbon-trading scheme, centred in London, which is supposed to be helping to save the planet from global warming. On paper the scheme, which was ratified under the Kyoto agreement and supervised by the UN, looks like an efficient way to cut global carbon emissions. However, a Live investigation has exposed a series of major failings and loopholes in the scheme.

The great carbon credits merry-go-round
-- Daily Mail (click on image to see details)

As you dig below the surface it would appear that the UN programme – with backing and finance from Britain – is as polluted as the questionable companies it chooses so generously to reward. In the middle of the City of London is a large anonymous-looking building, home to the European Climate Exchange (ECX). About 98 per cent of the carbon-emissions trading in Europe is done in this office, with more than 25 million tons of carbon traded daily. Last year this market was worth £80 billion worldwide, and it’s set to grow to £97 billion this year, despite the recession. Here traders sell our planet’s future in the form of carbon credits... each credit represents a ton of CO2. Chief executive Patrick Birley meets us in the glass-panelled reception. He points out where climate protestors camped on the doorstep during the G20 protests in March. ‘I care just as passionately about saving the planet as they do,’ he says. ‘But the difference is that I believe environmentalism and capitalism can converge.’

Companies that cut their emissions gain credits. If, on the other hand, they exceed their [pollution cap] quotas, they have to acquire credits... trading involves Europe’s biggest banks, including RBS and Barclays. Until the global slowdown, carbon was one of the most profitable ‘commodities’, nearly doubling in value between 2007 and 2008.

But concerns are now being raised about this market approach to controlling emissions, with heavily polluting companies seemingly being financially rewarded. The hulk looming above Radha’s fields was the first factory in the world to profit from the UN scheme, and is something of a flagship project. Yet for the villagers, the scheme is rewarding the very factory that’s brought them misery.

Narendra Modi

We arrive in Gandhinagar, the state capital, to meet Gujarat’s controversial right-wing chief minister, Narendra Modi. ‘You can have big industry and be green' ... but he admits carbon credits can be a ‘good business opportunity’. ‘It’s a typical Western capitalist system, cash- and profit-based. In the East we think differently; caring for nature and the environment is something that comes naturally to us. But of course we’ll take the carbon-credits money if it is offered to us. Why wouldn’t we?’

8 year old Nita, born without an elbow joint

In a village near GFL, scores are sick with joint aches, bone pains, unexplained swellings, throat and nerve problems and temporary paralysis. The farmers can’t put any names to their illnesses and, as low-caste dalits (or untouchables), most of them are too poor to access proper medical services.

Dr Alison Doig, senior climate-change advisor at Christian Aid, says, ‘Live’s investigation highlights exactly what’s wrong with this flawed system, which is focused only on exchanging carbon credits globally, with no accounting for other environmental or social damage. All carbon credits are doing is making some companies rich, while doing nothing to prevent global pollution. It needs either abolition or total reform.’

‘The carbon-credits business operates rather like the financial-services industry did,’ says Kevin Smith of campaigning watchdog Carbon Trade Watch. ‘Insufficient scrutiny and transparency, dodgy projects getting money when they shouldn’t be. And we all know the consequences of what happened in financial services. But this is potentially much more serious, because unlike the Government, nature doesn’t do bailouts.’

*****

This report is quoted in a new study by United Nations Non-Governmental Liaison Service (UN-NGLS) Climate Justice for a Changing Planet: A Primer for Policy Makers and NGOs (Dec 2009), fourth in a Climate Justice series: Nick Dearden and Tim Jones, Developing Nations Unite Around Justice In Barcelona Talks; Richard Sherman, Climate and Development Goals: Is there need for a post-Copenhagen Framework?; Natalia Cardona, Placing the Right to Development and Justice at the Heart of the Response to Climate Change.
See also World's Most Polluted Places 2009; Enron's toxic coverup in India by corrupt officials -- Enron was the biggest US corporate lobbyist for carbon-trading; the infamous Summers Memo of 1991 by the World Bank's chief economist, who now heads the US Board of Economic Advisers; criticism of CDM credits for HFC23 by Carbon-Finance Online 15 Feb 07.

Protesting pirate loggers in Amazonia -- by Brenda Balletti

Articulo en español en bajo. All photos and English article by Brenda Baletti, an expert on on environmental politics in Brazil, are taken from Grist 12 Jan 10. In theory, Brazil's Economic and Ecological Zoning plans (ZEE) protect indigenes, quilombolas (descendants of runaway slaves), traditional river people, landless peasants, and nature. But since 1990 over 500 people have been murdered by plantation bosses and land grabbers. The grileiros' violence and corruption of officials continue, making a mockery of "ecosystem management".

*****

indigenous protesters at Gleba Nova Olinda
Early one morning in late November 2009, a group of 30 people set out by motorized canoes from the community of Santa Maria of Uruará, in the lower Brazilian Amazon to the junction of the Tamataí and Uruará Rivers, at the boundary of the Extractive Reserve Renascer.* The group set up a camp on the riverbank in order to do what the government has not — block illegal loggers who have been taking wood from inside the reserve.

In June of 2009, after more than a decade of conflict between the traditional riberinho (river dweller) communities of the region and loggers and commercial fishers, the Renascer Extractive Reserve was created, albeit at half of the size that the communities had requested. The size was limited in order to accommodate logging and mineral interests, according to government officials involved with the process.

But the creation of the reserve changed nothing—illegal loggers protected by armed gunman have continued to extract timber from inside the reserve’s boundaries. The state and federal government agencies (SEMA and IBAMA respectively) say they have no resources to monitor and enforce restrictions inside the reserve. In fact, after the creation of the reserve, the number of timber barges leaving the area actually increased; until the locals started blocking shipments of logs, up to five barges per day were floating down the river with a total of up to 5,000 cubic meters of wood illegally logged from the reserve.

The camp that started in late November quickly grew to hundreds of people, blocking passage of river barges and waiting for government agents to come and negotiate with them. What started as a few hammocks strung up in a muddy, mosquito-ridden forest has grown to a village. They cleared out the brush, and each family built a makeshift house from plastic and wood and dug a fire pit. They take turns fishing, and periodically one of them sacrifices a cow to feed the group.

Because the protesters prevented barges from floating down the river for more than a month, the thwarted loggers began to retaliate. Their planes periodically make threateningly low flyovers; loggers in passing boats yell threats. One night, five men set fire to brush next to the camp.

The Jaurú logging company attempted to bribe the community members to let wood pass down the river. When their offer was rejected, the company hired gunmen to accompany their barges to market. In the early morning of Jan. 3, five log-laden barges set forth, accompanied by 40 armed men. When they reached the encampment, they opened fire on the sleeping, unarmed protestors. Two people were shot. The victims were rushed to the hospital; they survived.

The demonstration at Renascer was in part inspired by action taken a month earlier and 100 miles to the west, in an area called Gleba Nova Olinda at the source of the Arapiuns River. On Nov. 12, people from over 40 indigenous and traditional communities—frustrated after more than a decade of failed negotiations with the state for territorial rights, and increasingly suffering threats and attacks against their leaders—closed the Arapiuns River to logging traffic and sequestered two barges full of timber. The protestors camped on the river’s edge for a month as they waited, to no avail, for state and federal governments to arrive and address the problem. Finally, they set fire to the 2,000 cubic meters of wood on the barges. The fires blazed on for three days.

Over the last 10 years, logging has increased dramatically in the west of Pará, where both of these conflicts are located. Pará is a state in lower Brazilian Amazon that is larger than most countries and is notorious for violent land conflict. The incursion of logging into their territories there has resulted in traditional and indigenous people demanding land rights as a way to protect their communities. But the people have grown increasingly frustrated at the government’s unwillingness or inability to protect their homelands; often, land rights are not granted, reserves are not protected, and laws and management plans are not enforced.

In some cases, the government is asking for GPS coordinates and photos to prove that illegal logging is taking place—a totally unrealistic request of people who have on average studied to a fifth-grade level, live from subsistence and small-scale market agricultural production, and have only recently gotten gas-powered motors that provide electricity to their homes. Even when NGOs and outside researchers collect this data, it frequently comes to naught, because officials never follow up and because laws are written or circumvented in favor of logging interests.

So the river dwellers and other indigenous people are taking matters into their own hands, trying to stop the injustices committed against their communities. Ironically, they’re now the ones being branded as criminals.

In the case of the Renascer encampment, the loggers got a municipal judge to issue an order saying that the camp must be disbanded or the people imprisoned. Two weeks ago, the police began an action to put six of the leaders from the Arapiuns in “preventative prison,” which would lock them up indefinitely until they are exonerated of all charges. Such imprisonment is normally imposed on people who are at risk of fleeing or who lack physical addresses and jobs, neither of which applies to these leaders.

This sort of punitive action accomplishes two things — it robs the movement of its leadership, and it diverts the movement’s time and energy into a legal battle, distracting from its larger goal of fighting for land rights and curbing illegal logging.

Thus are the power relations in rapidly industrializing Brazil. For people in the United States, tussles over territorial rights and protest camps can seem provincial and distant — regrettable, yes, but in a world overflowing with injustice, not cause for excessive concern.

But the Amazon is not your average disputed territory. In recent decades, tropical forests have absorbed 20 percent of global fossil-fuel emissions, and the Amazon has been the biggest carbon sink of them all, absorbing nearly 2 billion tons of carbon dioxide a year. The river dwellers aren’t defending a vision of the rainforest as a pristine carbon sink, but rather as a homeland that can support a broad range of species and vegetation, including humans. That might not be what Western environmentalists what to hear, but it’s surely a more ecologically responsible vision than clear-cutting followed by vast soybean monocrops.

*****

See also *Renascer as failed ecosystem management, in New Statesman 28 Jun 07; John Frevalds on the origin of the word grileiros; Laura Molinari, "Land Conflicts between Grileiros and Peasants in Para, Brazil" American University, ICE 2005; "Battle in Amazonia" by Brenda Baletti, Gilson Rego and Antoni0 Sena in Counterpunch 13 Jan 10;" Local Battles to Save the Brazilian Amazon Pit Residents against Loggers and Government" by the same authors in Americas Program 6 Jan 10; photos of Uruará and Gleba Nova Olinda on Flickr.com; a 2006 report on illegal soy plantations in the region, linked to Cargill and other corporations. Oxfam video about climate change with Muriel Saragoussi of Brazil Ministry of Environment (Portugese with English subtitles).

*****

Las batallas locales por salvar la Amazonia brasileña enfrentan a los pobladores con las empresas taladoras y el gobierno

tirado de Programa de las Américas 12 de enero de 2010. Brenda Baletti vive en Santarém y las investigaciones que realiza para su disertación doctoral versan sobre las luchas por los derechos territoriales en la parte oeste de Pará. Gilson Rego es licenciado en Sociología por la Universidad Federal de Pará y trabaja para la Comisión Pastoral de la Tierra o Comissao Pastoral da Terra en Santarém. Antonio Sena es estudiante de Derecho en la Universidad Federal del Amazonas y se especializa en investigaciones sobre derechos a la tierra.

Tras más de una década de denuncias ignoradas, negociaciones infructuosas con el gobierno e incontables amenazas a sus dirigentes de parte de las empresas taladoras y sus mercenarios, los pobladores de la región Arapiuns en la Amazonia brasileña realizaron una protesta pública contra la tala ilegal en sus tierras. Más de 500 miembros de 40 comunidades se unieron, usando sus rabetas (canoas con motor fuera de borda) para cerrar el Río Arapiuns a la actividad de la tala en la Gleba Nova Olinda. Los manifestantes tomaron dos barcazas de troncos.

La protesta se prolongó durante más de un mes, mientras funcionarios del gobierno estatal y federal alternativamente les ignoraban o respondían con evasivas. Al final los manifestantes, frustrados, decidieron volver más apremiante su mensaje. El 12 de noviembre, luego de una segunda reunión con funcionarios estatales y federales que de nuevo dejaron sin solución sus problemas, incendiaron las barcazas.

La llamada Gleba Nova Olinda comprende 172,900 hectáreas entre los ríos Maró y Aruá, en el nacimiento del Río Arapiuns, municipio de Santarém. Sus recursos naturales son vitales para la sobrevivencia del pueblo Arapiuns. La protesta une a 14 comunidades de todo ese territorio, en el "Movimiento en Defensa de la Vida y la Cultura de los Arapiuns."

Las comunidades indígenas y campesinas de la Gleba Nova Olinda han estado solicitando al gobierno el reconocimiento legal de sus derechos territoriales desde hace trece años, cuando se creó la vecina Reserva Extractiva Tapajós-Arapiuns. A lo largo de los últimos diez años, los programas de intercambio de tierras estatales y de incentivos para el desarrollo atrajeron a explotadoras forestales y agricultores potenciales de soya a la Gleba Nova Olinda. Su entrada despertó conflictos, que pronto se volvieron violentos, por los derechos a la tierra y a los recursos con los habitantes del área. La violencia efectiva y las amenazas de violencia son medios comunes para la resolución de conflictos en el estado de Pará, donde recursos valiosos como la madera conducen a conflictos donde mucho se arriesga y la coacción estatal es mínima.

Las explotadoras forestales han dividido a las comunidades de la región, expandiendo el conflicto más allá de la tradicional confrontación entre taladoras, especuladores de tierras y comunidades. Las empresas han comprado a bajo precio el apoyo de algunas comunidades proporcionándoles infraestructura que el gobierno nunca les entregó, como generadores y edificaciones comunitarias, o empleos que convierten a los pobladores del área en agentes de la deforestación. Sin embargo, casi toda la población continúa protestando contra la presencia de las compañías taladoras.

Las comunidades de la Gleba Nova Olinda, el sindicato de trabajadores rurales y la Comisión Pastoral de la Tierra colaboraron durante tres meses en un proyecto de plan de tenencia de la tierra que garantizaría los derechos de los pobladores. Este plan se basó en años de discusiones entre las comunidades de la Gleba Nova Linda y la región de Arapiuns, más amplia. Después de todos sus esfuerzos, el gobierno del estado escogió ignorar su propuesta en favor de otra presentada por las compañías madereras y las cooperativas que reclamaban ilegalmente tierras y recursos dentro del área.1

En los hechos, el gobierno estatal de Pará resolvió no expulsar a las taladoras y especuladores de tierra que operan en los territorios tradicionales e indígenas. Por el contrario, la propuesta autorizó once "planes de administración sostenible" y redujo el tamaño del Proyecto de Asentamientos de Reforma Agraria Agroextractivistas Vista Alegre, de 25,000 hectáreas a 5,000 hectáreas.

Entre tanto, el proceso legal llevado por la Fundación Nacional del Indio (FUNAI) para que se reconozca y se demarque el área, ha permanecido estancado por años.2 La renuencia del FUNAI a demarcar el área ha permitido a las taladoras de la región y al gobierno estatal seguir ignorando los derechos del pueblo indígena Borari-Arapiuns construyendo caminos para el transporte de troncos, otorgando licencias para planes administrativos y negándose a hacer cumplir las normas para la tala y transporte de madera y tenencia de la tierra dentro del territorio indígena.

El Traslado de las Tierras y los Recursos al Mercado

En el estado de Pará, la vasta existencia de recursos naturales ha desembocado en corrupción incrustada en las instituciones. En una combinación tanto de manipulación legal como de violación de leyes con la impunidad, el gobierno frecuentemente facilita y encubre los delitos ambientales en la región. Como lo explica el especialista sobre la Amazonia Leal Aluzio, "a fin de cuentas, quienes tienen el poder de impedir o permitir la ilegalidad son las autoridades; ésta es la autoridad investida de poder institucional. Así la ilegalidad, cuando es 'liberada', se expresa en diversas formas de transgresión, desde lo claramente ilegal a lo presuntamente 'legal', que se encuentran 'protegidos' por la ley."3

Los cambios recientes en el uso del suelo y distribución territorial en la Amazonia brasileña siguen en general dos vertientes: Ha habido un ímpetu hacia el reconocimiento de derechos étnica y culturalmente fundamentados a tierras/territorio para los pueblos indígenas y nativos a consecuencia de movimientos populares de base más fuertes y convenciones internacionales. A los pobladores indígenas, quilombolas (descendientes de comunidades de esclavos fugitivos), pueblo "tradicional", campesinos sin tierra y a la naturaleza se les ha asignado sus propios polígonos en los "mapas de zonificación Económica y Ecológica", los planos territoriales de la región amazónica creados por la iniciativa del Banco Mundial para poner en práctica el "desarrollo sostenible participativo."4

La rezonificación inspirada por el Banco Mundial tiene por objeto facilitar otra meta de redistribución territorial del desarrollo económico, a saber, el desarrollo de mega-infraestructura y la apertura de áreas nuevas a la extracción maderera y minera, agroindustria y operación de ranchos. Los planos para la Zonificación Económica y Ecológica (ZEE por sus siglas en portugués), pretenden integrar los intereses ambientales y sociales al desarrollo económico en la Amazonia, pero se han convertido en un medio para "disfrazar de verde" el desarrollo económico de Brasil. El último plan de desarrollo económico brasileño, el Programa para el Crecimiento Acelerado (PAC - Programa de Aceleração do Crescimento), tiene destinados 95 mil millones de dólares de E.U. a la construcción de carreteras, vías fluviales y presas en la Amazonia en un período de cuatro años. La Zonificación Económico-Ecológica para el Oeste de Pará (ZEE – Oeste do Pará) fue creada en respuesta a preocupaciones ecológicas en torno al proyecto PAC para pavimentar la Carretera Santarém-Cuiaba (BR 163). Esta carretera es la única que cruza la Amazonia de sur a norte, y es potencialmente la vía más veloz para transportar cosechas de soya desde el sur de Brasil al Río Amazonas para su exportación. La Zonificación Ecológico-Económica divide a la región en áreas con diferentes clasificaciones según su uso.

En 2009, los gobiernos estatal y federal aprobaron rápidamente una serie de leyes y políticas que facilitan los cambios de usos del suelo contenidos en los planos ZEE. Estas leyes reorganizan las funciones territoriales y estatales para agilizar el desarrollo económico regional, e incluyen la creación de nuevas clasificaciones de tierras que relajan los reglamentos que permiten concesionar la agricultura y la extracción maderera y mineral. Algunas leyes crean también nuevos títulos de tierras o concesiones para uso colectivo.

Otras leyes atacan el código forestal brasileño. La misma ZEE reduce efectivamente la extensión de tierra que los tenedores deben conservar como bosque en su propiedad, del 80% al 50% en muchos casos.5 Actualmente se discute una medida para permitir que rancheros compren áreas de reserva fuera (y lejos) de su propiedad para dejarlos deforestar una mayor porción de su propia tierra, aun en áreas que están protegidas.6

Presuntamente las tierras indígenas y áreas de conservación están protegidas contra el desarrollo, mientras todas las demás áreas se dedican a "consolidar" o "expandir" actividades productivas para los mercados internos y externos, tales como operación de ranchos, agroindustria, y explotación forestal.7 Una vez delimitadas dichas áreas, leyes y políticas diversas obligan a que cada área funcione de acuerdo con su clasificación en los ZEE. La Gleba Nova Olinda está clasificada como zona de expansión, es decir que da prioridad al desarrollo por encima de la conservación, y permite a los desarrolladores obtener licencias para dichas actividades productivas.

La ambigüedad en la situación de la tenencia de la tierra es considerada un obstáculo para el desarrollo en el estado de Pará. Muy pocas personas tienen seguros sus derechos de propiedad en la forma de títulos sin gravámenes y gran parte del estado es terra devoluta, es decir, tierra de propiedad federal no clasificada, pero a menudo ocupada. En Pará, alrededor de 30 millones de hectáreas de esta tierra la tienen personas que la han ocupado ilegalmente 8 Existen programas de expedición de títulos de propiedad, asentamientos de reforma agraria, y áreas de preservación para resolver este problema.

Leyes como la de "terra legal", promulgada en 2009 [B1] legalizarán todas las reclamaciones de títulos de tierras en la Amazonia brasileña que constituyan tierra federal, hasta por 1,500 hectáreas. Pará promulgó una ley similar a nivel estatal. Estas leyes modernizan el traslado de las tierras, de propiedad pública, a propiedad privada.

Movimientos sociales, políticos de izquierda y algunos científicos han criticado estas leyes por abrir la puerta a la legalización de tierras obtenidas mediante invasiones ilícitas. También se han criticado estas leyes por promover la mercantilización de las tierras a gran escala, tergiversando la legalidad en beneficio de grandes terratenientes y de invasores de tierras, más conocidos como grileiros.9 El presidente Luiz Inácio da Silva trajo al profesor de Harvard Mangabeira Unger y lo nombró Secretario Especial de Asuntos Estratégicos para que presentara toda la argumentación política necesaria para lograr la aprobación de estas leyes: convencer legisladores, hacer tratos e infundir al proyecto el prestigio de Harvard. Unger renunció y regresó a Estados Unidos dos días después de que esta ley (federal) fue aprobada.

Frecuentemente se trata a los territorios indígenas y áreas de conservación como si estuvieran "fuera del mercado", pero los conflictos por el uso de la tierra en estas áreas demuestra que mientras contengan recursos viables, es improbable que se libren de la explotación. Las demoras extremas en la clasificación legal de áreas protegidas abren grandes oportunidades para la extracción rápida de los recursos antes de que dicha protección entre en vigor. Esto es práctica común.10 Cada vez más, los asentamientos de reforma agraria y las nuevas áreas de preservación son reducidas a una fracción de las dimensiones originalmente solicitadas, en favor de los intereses madereros y mineros.

El Caso de la Reserva Extractiva Renascer

La Reserva Extractiva Renascer fue creada como área de preservación dentro de la ZEE el 5 de junio de 2009 tras diez años de lucha. Las comunidades de la región comenzaron a cabildear para la creación de una reserva cuando grandes compañías de explotación forestal como Madenorte se mudaron a la región a finales de los 1990s, ocuparon el territorio y aseguraron sus límites mediante amenazas y violencia. Los organismos regulatorios federales se desentendieron de innumerables pedidos de sacar a las taladoras de la región. En 2006, el pueblo de Santa Maria do Uruará realizó una serie de acciones en el curso de tres meses, cerrando el camino al puerto, apoderándose de barcazas de troncos, y quemando finalmente una que transportaba 1,000 metros cuadrados de madera.

Fue sólo tras el incendio de las barcazas que el gobierno, por fin, respondió. En diciembre de 2006, el gobierno federal puso en práctica el "Operativo Renascer" contra la tala ilegal, que produjo nueve arrestos y eliminó la tala ilegal en la región, durante algún tiempo. Sin embargo, tres años después, todavía no se ha establecido la reserva y han regresado las mismas taladoras. Las empresas en sí no cambian: su personal e infraestructura siguen siendo los mismos. Solamente cambian su denominación y conservan las mismas prácticas. Madenorte, por ejemplo, funciona ahora como Jaurú, empleando los mismos aserraderos e instalaciones portuarias dentro de la reserva.

Después de negociaciones entre el estado, el gobierno federal, el WWF, y los miembros del sindicato de trabajadores rurales y el sindicato de pescadores, se creó la reserva Extractiva Renascer en junio pasado con la mitad de la extensión originalmente propuesta. La porción de la reserva con recursos minerales potenciales, la vasta mayoría de los bosques primarios, y las fuentes de los tres ríos de la zona quedaron excluidas, de acuerdo con altos funcionarios del Instituto Chico Mendes para la Conservación de la Biodiversidad (ICMBio), que administra las unidades de preservación en Brasil, a menudo a favor de los intereses madereros y mineros. Con la creación de la Reserva en el papel, la velocidad a la que se está extrayendo ilegalmente la madera ha crecido exponencialmente. Los habitantes informan que diariamente abandonan el área hasta cinco barcazas que transportan entre 1,000 y 2,000 metros cúbicos de madera.

En respuesta a las denuncias reiteradas de miembros de la comunidad, el Instituto Chico Mendes y la SEMA, Secretaría Estatal del Medio Ambiente, responsable de hacer cumplir las reglas de la tala en las tierras estatales y federales dentro de Pará, declararon que no pueden hacer nada sin tener que agotar largos procesos burocráticos. Afirman necesitar más información específica como datos y fotos obtenidos por geolocalización satelital (GPS), lo que rebasa la capacidad de las comunidades, siendo también su obtención un peligro para ellas. Así, las acciones y omisiones gubernamentales mandan las tierras y los recursos, teóricamente protegidos, directamente al mercado.

El pasado 27 de noviembre, los habitantes de Renascer y de Santa Maria de Uruará, en los límites de la reserva, decidieron que ya no podían esperar que el gobierno resolviera. Establecieron un campamento junto al límite de la Reserva en la confluencia de los ríos Tamataí y Uruará. Avisaron a las taladoras y a los gobiernos municipal, estatal y federal que ya no permitirían el paso de una sola barcaza maderera más. Una barcaza que iba en camino río abajo regresó de inmediato a su puerto y ninguna otra traspuso el bloqueo durante más de un mes.

Después de varias semanas de que las comunidades acamparon al lado del río (Tamataí), el Instituto Chico Mendes emitió la orden de cerrar el puerto. Un juez municipal también ordenó que se cerrara el puerto hasta que se ejercitaran las leyes contra la tala ilegal dentro de la Reserva. Con todo, la tala dentro de la Reserva no se detuvo, y los gobiernos estatal y federal siguieron asegurando que la falta de recursos hacía prohibitivo el cumplimiento de la ley ordenado por el juez. Los miembros de la comunidad siguen recibiendo amenazas diarias, tanto verbales como de los barcos y aviones que pasan cerca. Más de 200 personas siguen acampadas en la boca del Tamataí, impidiendo la salida de barcazas y exigiendo la respuesta gubernamental.

Después de intentar vanamente sobornar a los miembros de la comunidad para que permitieran la tala ilegal, el 3 de enero de 2010 las compañías taladoras contrataron a pistoleros para que transportaran su madera al mercado. Al llegar al campamento, y al cerrar los miembros de la comunidad el río con sus canoas, los mercenarios abrieron fuego hiriendo a dos pobladores, y las barcazas de troncos siguieron su camino hacia el mercado.
Intervenciones

Los actos de desobediencia civil de los movimientos sociales para llamar la atención hacia las violaciones de sus derechos son criminalizados en la prensa, descalificados por ONGs internacionales que afirman haberlos apoyado, y se les abren procesos legales con mayor frecuencia.11 Los líderes de los movimientos tanto de Arapiuns como de Renascer han sido citados por la policía y amenazados con la cárcel mientras las taladoras siguen actuando impunemente. Empero tales actos parecen las únicas opciones para arrancar una respuesta al gobierno y hacer retroceder a quienes han delinquido contra ellos.

Los gobiernos del G-20, la prensa, la mayoría de las ONGs ecológicas internacionales importantes, y muchos científicos, han celebrado esta preservación orientada al desarrollo, y obtenida por medio de acciones oficiales basadas en el mercado, como la mejor forma de salvar la Amazonia. Sin embargo estas políticas ya están demostrando ser insuficientes, conflictivas y contraproducentes, tal como se ha visto en los casos de la Gleba Nova Olinda y la Reserva Renascer. Los costos sociales y ecológicos de "disfrazar de verde" este tipo de desarrollo inherentemente destructivo son enormes. Los graves problemas de los debates posteriores al protocolo de Kyoto, la actual crisis económica global y las múltiples crisis del paradigma de los mercados libres crean un contexto de explotación acelerada justo cuando los líderes mundiales honran la conservación ambiental de dientes para afuera.

Si los países y organizaciones del hemisferio norte realmente quieren detener la destrucción de los bosques y los pueblos de las regiones tropicales, deben reconocer, valorar y poner en práctica las innumerables propuestas para la conservación ambiental no basadas en el mercado. Los habitantes de estos bosques son quienes pueden garantizar su supervivencia a través de sus conocimientos y prácticas diversos [B1].

Los burócratas del G-20 harían bien en aprender de esta gente. Un paradigma más humano y considerado comienza por reconocer que nuestros modelos de consumo y de gobierno internacional son directamente responsables de gran parte de la destrucción.

La comunidad internacional puede ayudar más a la conservación de la Región Amazónica prestando la atención debida a los temas que surgen en los debates de la localidad, en lugar de recurrir al discurso generalizado de "buen gobierno" y de soluciones basadas en el mercado a los problemas planteados por los patrones mundiales de consumo. Un enfoque más razonable es el de presionar a los gobiernos en los niveles estatal y nacional para que reconozcan y respeten los derechos de la población a gobernar sus propios territorios y recursos en la práctica y no sólo en la retórica.

Éste no es un llamado romántico al localismo; es una cuestión trascendental de soberanía política. Los pueblos de la Gleba Nova Olinda y la Reserva Renascer ¿no tienen el derecho de determinar su identidad, demarcar sus territorios y decidir cómo administrar las tierras y los recursos dentro de ellos?
Notas

1. Treccani, G.D. 2009. Regularizacao Fundiaria da Regiao Mamuru Arapiuns. Presentación en Power Point. Seminario Ideflor. Santarém.
2. El proceso de reconocimiento de derechos indígenas a la tierra se inicia con una investigación antropológica de la historia y la cultura de los pueblos aunada a una investigación geográfica de las dimensiones de su territorio. Se publica un informe sumario en el Diario de la Federación, y se abre un proceso de 90 días durante el cual las partes interesadas pueden contender por los derechos al área. Toda la documentación se envía al Ministerio de Justicia, el cual anuncia oficialmente la demarcación. La demarcación física de los límites es realizada por un tercero contratado por el gobierno. La investigación antropológica y geográfica respecto a la Gleba Nova Olinda se completó en 2007. El informe sumario todavía no se publica.
3. Leal, Aluizio. Trabalho Escravo Os porquês da questão? Texto inédito en portugués.
4. ACSELRAD, Henri. O Zoneamento Ecológico-Econômico da Amazônia e o panoptismo imperfeito. P&A Editora: Rio de Janeiro, 2002.
5. Véase la ley Nº 7,243, del 9 de enero de 2009. Mientras que el código forestal ordena una reserva de 80%, estipulando que si un individuo posee tierra que está deforestada en más de 80%, esa tierra debe reforestarse, la ZEE cambió este requisito. Los tenedores de tierra ya deforestada pueden utilizar hasta el 50% de esa propiedad en lugar de reforestarla.
6. Véase http://www.socioambiental.org/noticias/nsa/detalhe?id=.
7. Véase la ley Nº 7,243 del 9 de enero de 2009.
8. Benatti 2007.
9. Como ejemplo, véase la carta abierta de Marina Silva sobre esta medida: http://www.socioambiental.org/nsa/detalhe?id=2896.
10. Benatti, J.H. 2007. Internacalizacão da Amazônia e a questão ambiental: o direito das populações tradicionais e indígenas a terra. Revista Amazônia Legal de estudos sócio-jurídico-ambientais. 1(1): 23-39.
11. Como ejemplo véase "Moradores incendeiam balsas com Madeira no Pará http://www.greenblog.org.br/?cat=202.

Ver también estas noticias de Greenpeace Brasil en portugues: uno, dos.

Dust from Our Eyes: An Unblinkered Look at Africa -- by Joan Baxter

Joan Baxter is a Canadian mother of two, who has worked for years with African development organizations. She has reported for IDRC, BBC, CBC, and many newspapers including Le Monde Diplomatique (see her article in the January 2010 French edition). Her books include A Serious Pair of Shoes - An African Journal, Graveyard for Dreamers, Strangers Are Like Children, The Hermit of Gully Lake, and Dust from our Eyes (2008). In this video for her latest book, she outlines an ethic of development and international aid:
See also her bibliography and film credits.

How we reduced our footprint -- by Hugh and Jo-Ann Robertson

Canada has the third highest ecofootprint in the world after the United Arab Emirates and the US. The ecofootprint is the amount of land and water that we require for consumption and subsequent waste disposal. We require 7.5 hectares per person (4 times the earth's biocapacity per person). Switzerland requires 5 hectares, China is presently at 1.8, and Bangladesh only requires 1 ha/pp. If every person on the planet lived at our level of material consumption, we would need four planets. See how you rate with this UBC calculator and tips from the Suzuki Foundation.

Carbon footprint (CO2 tonnes per person) - Wikipedia

A carbon footprint, on the other hand, measures the volume of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere. Like our ecofootprint, Canada also has the third highest carbon footprint in the world: 24 tonnes per person. By comparison, the UK is 11 t/pp while China is far behind at 2 tonnes per person. Per year. A more comprehensive carbon footprint not only measures immediate emissions, but the life cycle of a product. Instead of measuring only the electricity that we use to prepare our food, an extended carbon footprint would also include the energy used in the production of the food and its delivery to market. The earth's ability to absorb carbon is fast declining. Scientists estimate we have already overshot it by 30%. The oceans are close to saturation; forest cover is decreasing and fertile soils are eroding. Our lifestyle exceeds the sustainable limits of the biosphere. Our ecological debt is surging. We are no longer living off nature’s interest; we eating up our scarce biological capital.

In September 2005, the (now cancelled) One-Tonne Challenge program assessed our home carbon footprint at 3.4 tonnes of greenhouse gases per individual occupant, just over half the national average and well below the Kyoto target of 4.5. After the changes we describe below, using the same carbon calculator, it came in at about 2.5 - a reduction of more than 25%. Our home's ecological footprint in September, 2005, was 4.3 hectares per person. The latest calculation puts us at 3.5 hectares per person, slightly less than half the national average - a 20% reduction.

We have passed global peak productions in oil, fish and food and we have reached the physical limits of fertile land, freshwater and clean air. We are also close to a tipping point in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and face irreversible climate change.

Furthermore, statistical footprints cannot measure some of the less discernible damage we are inflicting on natural ecosystems. We are choking the oceans with plastic, poisoning our lakes and rivers with chemical toxins, and contaminating the subterranean water table with leachate from our garbage dumps. The extinction of countless species is unraveling the complex web of life underpinning human survival.

Curbing Consumption: The First Step Towards Sustainable Living

"Be the change that you wish to see," said Gandhi. There are no technofixes that will reduce our environmental footprint while keeping our consumer lifestyle. Changing our behaviour is far less expensive, (though more difficult) the only approach that will ensure a sustainable future for the planet, just as conservation is far cheaper than consumption. It is time for the real conservatives to stand up.

For the past 4 years, I and my wife have been engaged in a personal quest to reduce our energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, to demonstrate that the targets in the Kyoto Protocol and in the (sadly defunct) One-Tonne Challenge are attainable without sacrificing quality of life.

We live in Ottawa (a cold city) in a 19 year old, 1800 square foot townhouse. We started with an energy audit of the house, which gave us a mere 66% energy efficiency rating. Most of the loss is through windows, doors and roof. Other hard-to-find exterior heat losses, such as faulty wall insulation, were located with an infrared scan. The audit took baseline readings of utilities' energy consumption, for post-refit comparison. Our home was one of the first in Ottawa to install a digital smart meter, which allows us to check how each step reduced consumption.

Armed with baseline readings, energy audit, and recommendations for improvement, we were ready to start. Focussing on low tech energy conservation, we:

• replaced bulbs with compact fluorescents
• installed rain barrels
• installed low-flow showerheads and toilets
• sealed air leaks
• gradually replaced old windows
• put in a wrought iron front door
• awnings on south facing windows (we do not use air conditioning)
• overhead ceiling fans
• an indoor drying rack in stairwell (Dumbarton air dryer, see photo)
  
• reshingled the roof with light shingles, and
• reinsulated and ventilated attic space.

Food consumption: we try to buy produce from a 100 mile radius by shopping at local organic markets and by tending our own vegetable garden in the summer. We reduced our consumption of meat. A locavore vegetarian diet could cut our eco-footprint by as much as 30%.

In addition to energy-saving, we reduced our ecological footprint by almost eliminating garbage disposal -- by minimizing all purchases, recycling and composting biodegradable material. We are down to one small bag every 6 months. We also shop second-hand when possible. All products contain embedded energy (carbon emissions, processed water-- a cotton shirt, for example, has a water footprint of 2,00 litres!). Second-hand shopping is a good way to practise an important environmental R, “re-use.”

The next step

We also bought an inexpensive watt meter to measure individual appliances. Appliances using 220 volts that are wired directly into the panel require a more advanced meter, such as “The Energy Detective” which must be installed by an electrician. All appliances contain embedded energy used in the manufacturing process -- so simply replacing a relatively new fridge, for example, might not be a wise decision, financially or environmentally. Another decision involved the cost of new appliances. Bill Kemp, a renowned Ottawa area energy efficiency specialist, explains the concept of life cycle cost, which he calls “true cost” as opposed to “first cost” (or initial cost) in his book Smart Power: An Urban Guide to Renewable Energy and Efficiency. He argues that basing the purchase of appliances on their energy efficiency and buying quality (and, often, more expensive) products when upgrading will actually outperform the stock market in the long run. We have tried to apply the concept of life cycle costs to all our purchases. Already we can see a return on investment as resource and energy prices continue to rise.

Pursuing these principles, we gradually replaced our major appliances and car with:

• a high efficiency natural gas furnace.
• efficient dish and clothes washers.
• a small 25-gallon electric hot water heater
• a natural gas cooktop
• a small electric convection oven.
• an energy recovery ventilator
• an airtight woodstove
• a smaller barbeque, and
• a Toyoto Prius.

Jo-Ann and Hugh with their airtight woodstove

In order to monitor our energy costs more closely, we ended "equalized utility billing" that gives you the same monthly bill in all seasons. We now know exactly what our natural gas, electricity and water cost. It requires a small amount of extra effort -- reading a meter and phoning in the reading, to correct the company's estimate. We continue to use automatic bank deductions. Equalized billing is supposed to eliminate spikes for winter heating and summer air conditioning. But our new appliances mitigated any major spikes. In fact, with a personal effort to minimize energy use, we have reduced our bills dramatically.

Four years later

Our electricity consumption is now only 375 kilowatt hours per month, compared to the Ontario average of 750-1,000 kwh/m (varying with number of occupants, and use of electricity for space and water heating -- we use lower-cost natural gas). Because our electrical water heater is small, set at 49 degrees C and our showers and appliances are low-flow, power demand is not quite low. For two people, we use half the provincial average.

We need no air conditioning in summer. A screened wrought iron door allows cool night air to circulate through the house; fans and awnings keep the house comfortable during the day. We cook outdoors on a small barbecue or a two-burner hotplate to minimize indoor heat buildup. On smoggy days, we eat cold plates and salads because coal-fired electricity and barbecues both contribute to particulate emissions. Replacing energy-hog dryers, we use an outdoor drying rack for clothes in the summer, and the indoor rack during the winter.

To trim our carbon emissions even further, the Robertsons have signed on to renewable energy from wind and low-impact hydro at marginally higher prices from Bullfrog Power. Because so much of Ontario’s electricity is still coal-fired, this substantially reduces our carbon footprint.

In winter, our home is heated by a high efficiency natural gas furnace, complemented by a low emission airtight wood stove. We also use a gas-fired cooktop in the kitchen. Together with improved insulation, reduced air leaks, our consumption of natural gas 900 cubic meters/year and dropping steadily. The Ontario household average is 3,000 cubic meters for water and space heating alone!

Our water footprint is down to 80 litres per person per day because of rain barrels, efficient appliances and low flush toilets. The daily Ottawa consumption is 250 litres per person; the national average is about 300. More than half the City’s operating budget is spent on electricity charges to pump, clean and distribute water and then remove and treat wastewater and sewage. Imagine how happy citizens would be if their city taxes were cut by one-third!

Three years back, we replaced our 13 year old Volvo with a hybrid Prius. Our gasoline consumption has dropped by two-thirds. This and no repairs have saved us at least $3000 per year, helping to offset the capital costs of the Prius. The initial cost of $30,000 is more expensive than many cars in the family sedan category. But based on life cycle expenses, Consumer Reports recently rated the Prius “least expensive” car in this category.

Driving is still the largest part of the our carbon emissions. They are not proud of the fact that they average 25,000 kilometres per year, slightly more than the national average. The high mileage is partly for family reasons (“love miles” in the words of George Monbiot, author of Heat) and partly because they avoid flying for environmental reasons. We are all too aware that driving accounts for half of the carbon footprint of Canadians who own a vehicle.

Our first energy audit rated our house at 65 out of 100. Minor refits improved it to 72. Further improvements have now pushed its rating to 79, qualifying us for Energy Star status. We came within a whisker of the R2000 level of 80. If our 18 year old townhouse can be transformed into virtually an R2000 home, why are we as a society not demanding construction of energy efficient houses? Retrofitting is a more expensive way of improving efficiency and fighting global warming than new-build. Approximately half the greenhouse gases created by each Canadian are generated in the home.

Return on investment - sunlightelectric.com

Costs and gains

How cost effective are retrofits and renovations? What is the cost recovery period? These are legitimate questions for homeowners. Our improvements were done gradually, as regular maintenance, upgrading substandard workmanship, or replacing worn out appliances or. We had no major capital projects, such as installing solar panels. Over the past 4 years we have spent about $30,000, partly financed by government rebates and dramatically lower utility bills. We have established our own carbon fund to offset the emissions of the Prius. We use these “carbon dollars” for our energy-saving projects. Real estate consultants advise homeowners to set aside 5% of the value of the house per year for maintenance -- such as Energy Star doors and windows, and energy efficiency. Last year we had to replace the roof shingles. We chose a light colour, to reflect sunlight during the summer, thereby reducing heat build up in the attic and keep the house cooler. Our roof shines out clearly on Google Earth. At least we are safe from a heat seeking missile!

A recent CMHC study shows most home renovations are undertaken for cosmetic reasons. These may no longer enhance the resale price of a house, as resources become scarce. In the UK, the law will soon require that home sellers get an energy audit. Energy efficiency rather than cosmetics may soon determine home prices. So retrofit and energy-conserving appliances make both economic and ecological sense. Improvements will increase the value of a house, both short and long-term. Monthly utility costs, paid in after-tax dollars, are reduced and generally our homes are healthier and more comfortable. Unlike other possessions, homes are free of capital gains taxes when sold.

Our upgrading costs over the past 4 years were $30,000 for home improvements and $30,000 for a Prius. Neither of these expenditures is excessive by current standards for renovations and vehicles. We estimated the cost recovery periods home, appliances and car at between 3 and 12 years. But rising energy and resource prices may well shorten these periods. For us, money was not the main motive – moderating climate change by reducing our footprints may be the most rewarding result.

We do not live like ascetics. In winter, our thermostat is set at 20 degrees during the day and 17 at night. We also run an Energy Recovery Ventilator which circulates fresh air but recaptures the heat from the outgoing air. Our energy and carbon savings have not imposed a dramatic change in quality of life. So it is doable, by ordinary people. We can live more sustainably at no great cost or inconvenience. Individuals can make a difference in the battle against climate change.