International

nature for salethe impacts of privatizing water and biodiversity

issu

e 10

7

Hok

owe

Pam

owe,

hea

dman

of

the

Bat

amoa

cla

n o

f th

e Ko

suo

trib

e (c

asso

war

y tr

ibe)

nea

r th

e A

wor

ra R

iver

, Pap

ua

New

Gu

inea

.

privatization

107waterjanuary 2005 | issue 107

Read

ab

out

and

get

invo

lved

in t

he

mos

tu

rgen

ten

viro

nm

enta

l an

d s

ocia

lca

mp

aign

s ar

oun

d t

he

wor

ld b

y su

bsc

rib

ing

to F

rien

ds

of t

he

Eart

hIn

tern

atio

nal

’s link

seri

es o

f p

ub

licat

ion

s!

sub

scri

pti

on r

ates

[an

ave

rage

of

4 p

ub

licat

ion

s p

er y

ear

incl

ud

ing

pos

tage

]in

divi

dual

s &

ngo

su

s$30

thir

d w

orld

/ lo

cal g

rou

p r

ate

us$

15co

rpor

ate

rate

us$

90

For

pay

men

td

etai

ls, p

leas

e co

nta

ctth

e Fo

EI S

ecre

tari

at

linkme up!

friends of the earth Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) is the world’s largest grassrootsenvironmental federation, with 71 national member groups in 70 countries and more than one millionindividual members. With approximately one million members and supporters around the world, wecampaign on today’s most urgent environmental and social issues. We challenge the current model ofeconomic and corporate globalization, and promote solutions that will help to create environmentallysustainable and socially just societies.

friends of the earth has groups in: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Belgium(flanders), Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Curaçao(Antilles), Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, England/Wales/Northern Ireland, Estonia,Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Grenada (West Indies), Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras,Hungary, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia (formerYugoslav Republic of), Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua,Nigeria, Norway, Palestine, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Scotland, SierraLeone, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Togo, Tunisia, Ukraine,United States, and Uruguay.

(Please contact the FoEI Secretariat or check our website for FoE groups’ contact info)

Published January, 2005 in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. ISBN: 90-0914913-9.

editorial team Jens Christiansen (Movementsmedia), Ronnie Hall (Friends of the Earth UK), Helen Chandler, Marijke Torfs, Marta Zogbi, Simone Lovera (Friends of the Earth International), Dena Leibman

design Tania Dunster, KÏ Design, ki_designnl@yahoo.co.uk

printing PrimaveraQuint, www.primaveraquint.nl

with thanks to Alexandra Wandel, Alipio Valdez, Andrei Laletin, Anil Naidoo, Anthony Amis, Cam Walker,Damien Ase, Debra Broughton, Duncan McLaren, Elias Díaz Peña, Farah Sofa, Godwin Uyi Ojo, IreneVélez, Isaac Rojas, Jamal Juma, Janneke Bruil, Javier Baltodano, Jean Marie M Ferraris, Jose Rodriguez,Karin Nansen, Larry Lohmann, Longgena Ginting, Meenakshi Raman, Mensah Todzro, Miguel Lovera,Niki Johnson, Noble Wadzah, Ricardo Carrere, Ricardo Navarro, Roman Havlicek, Roque Pedace, StephenWilliamson, Tatiana Roa, Thuli Brilliance Makama, Toni Vidan, Tony Juniper, Julian Manduca, OjarsBalcers, Rusudan Simonidze.

International

friends of the earth international secretariat

P.O. Box 191991000 GD AmsterdamThe NetherlandsTel: 31 20 622 1369Fax: 31 20 639 2181E-mail: info@foei.orgWebsite: www.foei.org

© ir

ma

pop

ovic

, zel

ena

akci

ja

foei | 3

one public support for private control 7

executive summary 4preface nature for sale 6

two water privatization 17

introduction 18paraguay privatizing the guarani aquifer 18water a human right 20canada privatization, contamination and nationalization 20central and eastern europe water privatization 21impeding access to water through public finance 22uruguayans unite against water sell-off 22philippines cholera and higher water rates 24scotland scottish water, a private company under public control 25colombia privatizing community aqueducts 25el salvador water as a social problem 26nigeria denying access to drinking water 26malaysia good public governance 27palestine occupation and privatization of water aquifers 27australia positive flows imposed by government 28

three selling forests & parks to loggers & tourist companies 29

a tragedy of the commons? 30australia forest and plantation privatization in victoria 30georgia protecting forests 32indonesia privatization of national parks 33malaysia the privatization of gunung mulu national park 34swaziland biodiversity privatization and human rights abuses 36usa the disneyfication of its parks 38malta golf course defeated 38

four the new markets 1: selling carbon 39

the carbon market: “nature on sale” all over again 40costa rica markets of environmental services and the privatization of resources 40brazil plantar – privatizing the climate and land for profit 44carbon sinks or sinking climate 46paraguay life as commerce? mbaracayú: land of the aché 46

five the new markets 2: selling our genes & knowledge 49

introduction 50england bioprospecting 50the group of mega-diverse countries 51the new columbus: craig venter conquers latin american genes 51some current patents 52UPOV – plant breeders’ rights 53biopiracy and its impacts on biological and cultural diversity 54canada court case rules in favour of patents on life 54costa rica biopiracy and the case of INBio 55developing countries defending their genetic resources 56

six conclusion: privatization & the poor 57

excluding the poor 58togo drinking water 58colombia monetarization of life: the case of green markets 59the millenium development goals for sale! 62russia - siberia communism and capitalism: different roads to the same place 62latvia finnish pulp factory threatens local forests 63

nat

ure

for

sal

eth

e im

pac

ts o

f p

riva

tizi

ng

wat

er a

nd

bio

div

ersi

ty

© f

oei

introduction 8papua new guinea the ‘invisible’ privatization of clan land 9croatia the indirect impact of EU trade liberalization 11bolivia privatization and social unrest 12ghana ifi’s and water privatization 13indonesia the new water resources law and privatization 14

© f

rien

ds

of t

he

sib

eria

n f

ores

ts

4 | foei

In the developing world, 1.2 billion people liveunder the poverty line, earning less than $1 aday. Of the 4 billion cases of diarrhea eachyear, 2.2 million people die unnecessarily.Preventable water-related diseases kill 5million people every year, 4 million of themchildren. Today, an estimated 1.2 billion peoplelack access to a safe water supply and 2.4billion do not have adequate sanitation.

executive summary

© t

obia

s

“I also think – and this may sound like heresy – that the whole biodiversity issue is beginning to sound more like economicsthan biology. As science begins to penetrate the gene structure, the equatorial rainforests enter into the valuation process.Science serves the economy, and both of them serve capital. Today, rainforest communities are evicted and their territoriesappropriated along with their traditional knowledge, which is given a market value. All of this lies at the heart of the newenvironmental conflicts; this also explains the war the US and its allies are waging in the Andean region.

Community management of rainforests cannot be considered a true alternative if it fails to question the foundations of theprevailing economic model. As in the old proverb “let’s change everything without changing a thing”, some people changethe official discourse, but their aim is still profit. Greenwash cannot be allowed to take over new initiatives.

The sustainable economic relations advocated so strongly by multilateral institutions are not sufficient to createsustainable societies. We need an economy that ensures the welfare of all society, that guarantees not only monetaryincome, but also food sovereignty and equality, ecological conservation and cultural sovereignty. Societies need to regaincontrol of political and social structures in order to ensure control over the profound transformations required.”

Hildebrando Velez Galeano, CENSAT/Friends of the Earth-Colombia, “Communities do it Best”, Link Magazine, 2002.

www.foei.org/publications

foei | 5

These are disturbing statistics, as the technology exists and resourcesare there to deal with this crisis. A fraction of the trillion dollars a yeargovernments spend on the military would make it possible to go wellbeyond the UN Millennium Development Goals on clean water andsanitation. Investment in water, unlike war, would save an estimated125 billion dollars a year in direct medical expenses and costsassociated with lower economic productivity related to preventablewater-related diseases.

Unfortunately, the solution chosen by governments does not focus onincreasing public investment. Instead, international policy makers,lobbied heavily by the private sector, are facilitating increased privateinvestment and management as the way out of the crisis. The world’spoorest people, especially women and children, are desperately in needof safe water and sanitation services. As the experience documented inthis publication shows, however, the poor can lose access to these basicservices when profit-oriented transnational water companies move in.

In the same way, Indigenous Peoples and local communitiesincreasingly find themselves excluded from forests and otherbiologically rich areas they have traditionally lived in and utilised. Theselands are progressively being handed over to logging, tourism andprivate park management companies. They are also being reserved for anew breed of company that establishes “carbon parks” – a new andlucrative avenue intended to offset the carbon dioxide emissions of richfossil fuel addict consumers in the North.

Friends of the Earth International is actively resisting this corporate take-over of nature’s wealth. We are fighting for people’s rights - to water,land, seeds and knowledge. The 34 national stories gathered in thispublication document not only the negative social and environmentalimpact of water and biodiversity privatization, but also how our membergroups are actively resisting such privatization in their countries.

Lan

dow

ner

Sak

as A

onom

o, o

n a

sto

ckpi

le o

f lo

gs a

tLo

g Ca

mp

56, M

iddl

e Fl

y, W

este

rn P

rovi

nce

,PN

G. H

is fa

mily

is o

ppos

ed t

o th

e lo

ggin

g an

d th

ey a

re t

ryin

gto

pre

vent

furt

her

roa

ds f

rom

pas

sin

g th

rou

gh t

hei

r la

nd.

“By

look

ing

atth

atpl

ace

I fee

l ver

y sa

d an

d u

pset

and

fru

stra

ted

abou

tm

y la

nd

bein

g de

stro

yed

.”

© s

chel

tem

a/gr

een

peac

e

© f

rédé

ric

cast

ell,

foe

fran

ce

© ir

ma

pop

ovic

, zel

ena

akci

ja

6 | foei

© c

ensa

t, f

oe c

olom

bia

Since colonial times, natural resources have been exported fromdeveloping countries to feed the ever growing consumption needs ofpeople in rich, industrialized countries. To secure this system, northerngovernments ended their colonial rule by imposing an economic systemupon the old colonies that would ensure the continuing flow of naturalresources, at almost no cost.

Today, as economic globalization gathers pace, this unsustainable andinequitable pattern of consumption is being cemented into place.Impoverished countries, under pressure from richer states andmultilateral institutions such as the World Bank and InternationalMonetary Fund (IMF), are further locked into world trading, financialand investment systems aimed at securing the cheap transfer of naturalresources. They depend on the transnational corporations for imports ofcomponents and expensive new technology and pay for these inputs byexporting even more natural resources, sacrificing yet more biodiversity.

Because of their size and because they are often supported bygovernment subsidies, transnational corporations are dominating thenatural resource trading world. Small and medium-sized domesticenterprises in the South find it impossible to compete with thesepowerful newcomers and have little hope for the future. The systemresults in profit for some and huge losses and destruction for many. In thethird world, people are losing their forests, fish, and mineral resources ata rapid rate. They and their children are losing access to a sustainablelivelihood. Even the land and labour resources of the poor seem to be atthe disposal of the rich. All of this to support the consumption patterns ofthe rich, which are not sustainable and need urgent change.

The prospect for the future as designed by economic policy makers atthe World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Bank and other financialinstitutions that are dominated by Northern and corporate interestsdoes not look bright. As it is now, the poorest countries in the world willcontinue to provide the majority of the natural and human resourcesrequired for industrial activity – and receive little by way of reward.Indeed, as global markets become over-supplied, commodities becomeever cheaper - good for rich importing countries, but bad for poorexporting countries. As a result, the rich will continue to get richer, thepoor will slide further down into poverty and all of us find ourselvesincreasingly confronted with the effects of the environmentaldestruction caused by the over-exploitation. There is no logic in thissystem; there is no justice in it.

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) challenges the system andpromotes alternatives that are environmentally sustainable and sociallyjust for all. We challenge the governments that insist on pursuing thesame old economic strategies and relentlessly reward thosetransnational companies that so far have benefited from environmentaland economic destruction. We fight trade and investment agreementsthat continue to be designed with the purpose of increasing corporateaccess to biological resources - even in those regions that may beconsidered the last frontiers of biodiversity. And FoEI calls on northerngovernments not to use the ‘war against terror’ as an excuse to accessand control the resources of oil-rich countries.

As an alternative to this ‘Nature for Sale’, FoEI supports ideas, proposalsand systems that aim to secure environmental justice for all. Wepromote community management of and control over biodiversity. Wepursue the development of collective rights for local communities andIndigenous Peoples (whether or not such rights are recognized byStates) and seek the recognition and repayment of the ecological debtthat has been accumulated by biopiracy and other predatory practices.

preface: nature for salemeenakshi raman, chairperson, friends of the earth international

foei | 7

part one | public support for private control

© s

usa

nn

e b

reit

kop

f

8 | foei

introduction In the developing world, 1.2 billion people live under the poverty line,earning less than $1 a day. Another 1.3 billion earn between $1 and $2a day. 842 million people around the world are hungry. Naturalresources are being polluted and depleted faster than they areregenerated, while the climate is changing dangerously. IndigenousPeoples are robbed of their cultures and lands. People are losing theirlivelihoods and women are marginalized further. Something is seriouslywrong with the global economic system.

Something is therefore also seriously wrong with the internationalfinancial institutions, who are supposed to ensure poverty alleviationand sustainable development. With their help, the world’s poorestcountries were supposed to get out of a downward cycle of increasingpoverty and servicing the never-diminishing external debt. But becauseof their “help”, these countries continue to service an unsustainabledebt at the expense of people and the environment.

one public support for private control

© g

reen

pea

ce©

sch

elte

ma/

gree

np

eace

© c

ole/

gree

np

eace

foei | 9

The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have designed aset of doctrines, called the Washington Consensus, which are market-oriented reforms aimed at attracting private capital back to countriescrippled by the unsustainable debt burden. The policy package wasoriginally designed for Latin America after the debt crisis of the 80s,conditioning IFI (International Financial Institution) loans for debtservice on 10 policy requirements including fiscal discipline,deregulation, privatization, and trade liberalization. Regional banks likethe Asian Development Bank and the Interamerican Development Bankwere quick to adopt the same recipe. In 1995, the World TradeOrganization was added to the mix of institutions established topromote trade liberalization and “free” trade.

Throughout the last two decades, these institutions have imposed thesame set of economic reform policies or “market fundamentalism” ondeveloping countries around the world. Unfortunately, people living inhunger are still waiting for these measures to deliver the economicopportunities that would lift them out of poverty. Overall, the neo-liberaleconomic reforms have not led to economic growth, let alone sustainabledevelopment. Trade liberalization has not benefited the poorest countries,but rather served the interests of the industrialized countries.

The biggest winners of the neo-liberal economic agenda have been thetransnational companies. Due to the ongoing process of economicglobalisation, corporations have been increasingly active on a globalscale. Industrial sectors, including the service industries, have beenrelocating from the North to the South. Markets in developing countrieshave become more interesting for multinational companies. But mostimportantly, trade liberalization policies combined with the pressure toprivatize has given private companies ever more access to naturalresources which used to be under public control.

In 2002, at the UN conference on Finance for Development inMonterrey, Mexico, the World Business Council on SustainableDevelopment succeeded in securing further consolidation of the privateinvestment agenda. The UN conference was supposed to be a broadpublic discussion about how to achieve more coherence between tradeand finance policies. The hope was that the debate would address policyinconsistencies and result in a shift away from socially andenvironmentally unsustainable development policies. This did nothappen. Instead, governments deferred their responsibilities andagreed to put the ‘trade-finance coherence’ process in the neoliberalhands of the WTO, the World Bank and the IMF.

1 [papua new guinea] the ‘invisible’privatization of clan land sell their goods, has been built. Promises of

new schools, infirmaries, and othercommunity-related facilities have never beenfulfilled. Meanwhile, the nearest companyfacility is only for its employees and does notserve the nearby villages, whose inhabitantshave to paddle upstream for several hours formedical treatment.

environmental degradation, human rightsabuse and death

Breaches of the Logging Code of Practicehappen continuously, with trees being felledillegitimately, and under-sized trees harvestedwithout approval. Forest Officers have notbeen monitoring company activities norperforming their constitutional duty toprotect the forest. Meanwhile, manywatersheds are being destroyed and the mainVailala River is becoming increasingly silted-up. Of great concern to the villages along theriverbanks is escalating soil erosion, especiallyduring heavy rains when large quantities arewashed away.

Other violations of environmental law haveoccurred, with diesel and chemical run offscontaminating the entire downstream riversystem. As late as October 2002, the company

trustees over logging royalties. However, theclanspeople hardly know anything about theirfunction and the nature of their operations.These companies have provided no services orany economic means of support for the socio-economic lives of the people.

In 2002 the logging permit expired, yet withoutthe consent of the majority of the clan, FrontierHoldings in collaboration with the landownercompany directors was granted an extendedpermit to continue operating in the area for upto ten years. The clans were left out of thediscussion and the company assumed fullcontrol of the land. In short the land has beenprivatized, and the landowners feel that theyno longer have any rights over their land. theyhave lost faith in the government, the ForestAuthority, and the company.

unfulfilled promises and missing benefits

Having the logging operation on their land hasbrought the locals few benefits. The monetarybenefit in the form of royalty payments hasbeen meagre, and the predicted “trickle down”economic benefit from the company’sinvestment has not materialized. No propereconomic infrastructure, such as roads andwharves, which could help locals transport and

The Vailala FMA/TRP area in Papua NewGuinea is under threat of permanentdestruction if the current trend in loggingpractices is not stopped. Operated by FrontierHoldings Limited, a subsidiary of theMalaysian logging giant Rimbuna Hinjau, thearea covers an estimated 900 000 hectares offorest and is one of the largest loggingoperations in the country. Logging ishappening at a rapid rate, with hardwood andother indigenous species being harvestedboth day and night. Since the harvestingbegan in 1995, many cases of environmentaldamage, river pollution, human rights abuse,over-logging, failure to honour agreements aswell as labour and employment breaches havebeen reported.

the privatization of clan land

The forest belongs to the original landowners,the local clans. Originally, logging permitswere brokered between the responsiblegovernment department, the Forest Authority,the directors of the landowner companies andFrontier Holdings. The landowner companieswere meant to represent the clans, and act as

10 | foei

This publication documents 34 cases describing what happens whenthis agenda is pushed through and the public sector leaves theexploitation and management of natural resources to the private sector.The publication focuses on the privatization of water and biodiversity.By highlighting local experiences, we aim to raise awareness of theimpacts of privatization on the resources that all of us, our children andgenerations of children to come need to be able to survive.

imposing privatization

Privatization is defined as the process of handing over (parts of) themanagement or operation of a public good or service to a privatecompany. Privatization is inherent to liberalization, which is the processof decreasing government control and boosting the role of marketforces. Breaking government monopolies implies that privatecompanies can compete which supposedly will lead to cheaperproducts and better services.

one public support for private control

Throughout the past decade, governments have privatized publiclyowned assets. They have done this on their own accord or were forcedto do so because of structural adjustment programmes. Theseprogrammes were imposed as loan conditions by the internationalfinancial institutions (IFIs). They entail a set of strict economic policyconditionalities, including trade liberalization and privatizationrequirements. These policy loans are supported with public funding.

The aim of the conditionality requirements is to increase production forexport and attract foreign direct investment. For many of the leastdeveloped countries, the loan conditions go further, prescribing that themost effective short-term strategy to bring in cash is to sell off publiclyowned assets such as water and forest resources to foreign ownedcorporations. To facilitate this process, IFIs impose investment climatereforms. These include relaxing national environmental and social laws,offering tax breaks, developing infrastructure, low-interest loans orother incentives in the hope that companies will set up shop in theircountry. As a result, private investment in the natural resources sectorhas boomed in many poor countries while the ability of nationalgovernments to regulate these investments and protect their citizens’access to natural resources has been greatly diminished. The neoliberaldoctrine seriously undermines democratic processes around the world.

the future?

What the people of Vailala want now is to halt thelogging operation and to ask the logger to abideby the logging code, as well as environmental andhuman rights laws. If the company is not willingto do so, then a new investor will be asked tooperate in the area. Otherwise, new ways to bringin investment without harming the environmentwill be discussed.

In Papua New Guinea, The Centre forEnvironmental Law and Community Rights, amember group of Friends of the EarthInternational, is active in the Vailala area, advisingand giving legal support to local clans andcarrying out surveys of the logging operations.

more information:Centre for Environmental Law and Community Rights: www.celcor.org.pg

When landowners question certain companyactivities, the Police Task Force are called in tosuppress the locals and most local peoplehave complained about ill treatment fromboth the logging company and the landownercompanies. Currently, the landowners feelthat they do not have rights under theconstitution nor do they feel that they are anylonger the landowners.

social instability

The situation has resulted in rising socialproblems in the local communities. Many youngpeople lead increasingly violent lives with crime,drugs and prostitution prevalent. Health-related problems are increasing and diseasesonce rare in the area have become common.

Moreover, conflict is on the rise, both againstthe company, illustrated by the shooting oftwo company employees during anoccupation of one of the base camps, andbetween clans, creating disharmony withinthe local communities.

poured DDT into a creek just upstream fromHeava village in the main Vailala River. Thecontamination killed all the marine life in thecreek. Reports from Hepea Aid post revealedthat chemical contamination was responsiblefor the death of nine infants in October 2002,who all died within a one week period. Thereare also reports downstream from Vailala ofseveral infant deaths in the same period.

The villagers are worried that their huntinggrounds, herbal plants and trees for buildinghouses and traditional artefacts are beingdestroyed, while water for drinking is beingcontaminated and animals and fish arebecoming scarce.

human rights abuse

The relationship between the company andthe landowners has deteriorated over theyears since the operation began. The companyhas deprived the people of their right to beheard and has been operating in isolationfrom the views of the majority of the locals.The company has disregarded existing locallaws and taboos and destroyed ancienttraditional and sacred ceremonial sites in thename of development.

Fly River, Papua New Guinea. © g

reen

pea

ce

foei | 11

There is no empirical evidence proving that foreign direct investment leadsto sustainable and equitable development. The UN DevelopmentProgramme’s report, Making Global Trade Work for People (2003), foundthat there is “no clear correlation between the volume of foreign directinvestment and development success.” A growing portion of foreigninvestments do not represent new and constructive investment in the realeconomies of developing countries. Instead, they are acquisitions of alreadyexisting public and private entities, including public service providers.

Over the years IFIs have adopted policies and provisions that aresupposed to ensure meaningful consultation with people that are to beaffected by their programs and projects. However, while theprivatization of natural resources has a direct effect on localcommunities, they are rarely meaningfully consulted in these processes.Privatization processes have generally been pushed through withoutthe free, prior and informed consent of local communities.

privatization and the world trade organization

The World Trade Organisation (WTO) is at the heart of the currentcorporate effort to commodify and privatize water and biodiversity. Itsrules have actual and potential impacts for a bewildering array ofnatural resources, even life itself. WTO negotiations on intellectualproperty rights, services, ‘non-agricultural market access’ and globalenvironmental rules are key culprits.

The purpose of the WTO is twofold – to provide rules governinginternational trade, and to open up markets. The welfare and wishes oftransnational corporations, as the main agents of international trade,are high on the list of trade negotiators’ concerns. Other issues, such asthe conservation of biodiversity and people’s right to resources, are ofconsiderably less interest and trade negotiators may ignore or evenreject them if conflicts with trade rules arise.

2 [croatia] the indirect impact of EUtrade liberalization

During the past decade Croatia has undergonea dramatic change in its governance system.The privatization process has created majorchallenges for the Croatian government asthey adjust to the loss of the control measuresand mechanisms they were accustomed to. Asa result of these changes, they rely strongly onenvironmental groups to maintain a certainlevel of public control over the environmentand environmental protection.

Its ambition to become a member of the EUmeans Croatia has had to change its ownlegislation to bring it in line with EU law, butthe results are not always positive. For example,Croatia is required to open up importantsectors of its economy to privatization,including the water sector. There are seriousrisks to the uncontrolled privatization of waterand other natural resources. Croatian NGOshave been questioning the secret take-over of awastewater treatment facility for Zagreb city bythe German company RWE. They argue that theCroatian government itself should fulfil itsresponsibility to provide affordable water andsanitation services to the people, and protectthe environment.

In the old communist system the State had fullresponsibility for the management of naturalresources. While this regretfully did not alwaysproduce the best outcome, there was at leastthe basic presumption that natural resourcesmanagement should benefit society as awhole. Now that resources are increasinglybeing privatized, resource management issolely for corporate profit. The exploitation ofgravel near Zagreb, for example, has a hugenegative impact on the environment and localcommunities but compensation from thecompanies for the use of these sorts of publicmineral resources is not yet being passed on.

A plan to expand the transport of oil over theAdriatic Sea represents another example of thethreats from deregulation and privatization. TheAdriatic Coastline is an important natural assetfor the Croatian people - the tourism sector inthat region alone generates some 2 billiondollars per year. However, a major expansion ofan oil terminal in the North of the Adriatic Sea isplanned, allowing Russian oil to flow viapipelines all the way to Croatia. The risks aretwofold: ballast water from oil tankers will be amajor cause of environmental degradation,while an oil spill would mean disaster for theCroatian environment, biodiversity, theeconomy, and the Croatian people as a whole.

more information:Green Action/Friends of the Earth Croatia:www.zelena-akcija.hr

“What about the costs? What

about the pollution caused by

environmental exploitation? We

too often see that these costs

are being socialized, while the

benefits are being privatized…”Ricardo Navarro, former Friends of the Earth International

Chair, at the Nature for Sale Conference, 2004

© ir

ma

pop

ovic

, zel

ena

akci

ja

12 | foei

privatizing water and trees

The WTO’s General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), establishedduring the last round of negotiations, which concluded in 1994, is nowbeing extended and revised, bringing many environmentally-sensitiveservice sectors into the WTO for the first time.

Sectors up for negotiation include energy and water services, tourism,transport, landscape management and waste disposal. The impact onbiodiversity is likely to be significant. For example, new governmentalconstraints on the number and size of oil pipelines, the development oftourist facilities, or the uptake of water from rivers and lakes could beprohibited. GATS could also force through the privatization of publicservices, including water provision and park and landscapemanagement, whenever any competition between the private andpublic sector already exists.

one public support for private control

Perhaps the most important feature of GATS is that it is almostirreversible. Indeed, it is specifically designed to lock countries intoagreements, creating a ‘stable’ and ‘predictable’ commercialenvironment for foreign investors. However, the downside is thatmistakes cannot be rectified at a later date. Furthermore, no newenvironmental or social welfare measures can be introduced. If the GATSnegotiations had already been finalized, for example, Bolivian citizenswould almost certainly be living with the privatized provision of waterdespite their success in defeating the proposal. [See case study above]

One of the hallmarks of GATS is a very clear North-South divide. RichNorthern countries are seeking commercial access to a wide range ofservice sectors in the South. The EU, for example, has requested theopening of water and biodiversity-related services in over 70 primarilydeveloping countries. Although markets have to be opened equally to allWTO members, Europe will still be the main beneficiary if any deals arestruck, because these could be hugely profitable for European watercompanies such as RWE, Suez, Thames Water and Veolia Environnement(previously Vivendi Environnement).

3 [bolivia] privatization and social unrest

Following years of pressure from the WorldBank, Bolivia’s government started a processof privatizing water and wastewater utilitiesin the city of Cochabamba in 1999. A forty-year lease signed in that year turned overcontrol of the water and sewage services ofCochabamba to Aguas del Tunari, a subsidiaryof the California-based Bechtel Corporation.The company’s bid was based on ‘full costrecovery’ and as of the 1st of January 2000,local water rates increased on averagebetween 35 and 51% (the actual rateincreases remain hotly contested). Over half amillion people were affected, and prices wereso steep that the very poorest foundthemselves paying almost one fifth of theirmonthly income just for water. This meantcutting back on other basic necessities.

Unsurprisingly, the people of Cochabambaresponded with massive protests. These weremet with military force and resulted in thedeath of at least one person and thewounding of 175. Nevertheless, as a directresult of this uprising the BolivianGovernment eventually rescinded its contractwith Bechtel. Bechtel is now endeavouring touse the World Bank’s International Center for

the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)to sue the people of Bolivia for US$25 millionin ‘damages and lost profits’. Such action isonly possible because Bechtel has transferredits Bolivian subsidiary to the Netherlands inorder to take advantage of a bilateralinvestment treaty that exists between thetwo countries.

In Cochabamba, attempts are still being madeto re-introduce water privatization throughthe back door, by creating private joint stockcompanies or “sociedades anonimas” throughthe municipalities. In response, socialorganizations are campaigning for a legalframework that ensures ownership of waterremains public and calling for theincorporation of indigenous and campesinocommunities’ experience in traditional watermanagement.

more information:Friends of the Earth Bolivia CERDET:pilcomayo@cosett.com.bo,cerdetcoord@cosett.com.bo

Water privatizationprotests in

Cochabamba,Bolivia. ©

tom

kru

se

foei | 13

The European Union’s secret GATS negotiating documents show thebreadth and depth of market-opening that the industrialized nationsare after. The EU’s request to Malaysia, for example, includes marketopening and the granting of national treatment (meaning that foreigncompanies must be treated at least as well as domestic ones) intelecommunications, construction, distribution, environmentalservices, tourism and travel, news agencies, transport and energy.

privatizing biodiversity and landscape

A country’s biodiversity resources and its natural landscape are publicassets that the state should hold in trust for its people. The main reason forpreserving biodiversity and protecting landscape is to maintain andpreserve critical ecological functions, including the regulation of climate,the preservation of genetic diversity, the protection of water resources andthe prevention of flooding and soil conservation. Indeed, the conservationof biological diversity and ecosystems is an absolute prerequisite forsustainable development. The fact that GATS could force through theprivatization of biodiversity resource management is therefore deeplyworrying, since it increases the risk that critical sustainability objectivesmay be compromised in the interests of commerce.

As if that wasn’t enough, current WTO negotiations on ‘non-agriculturalmarket access’ (NAMA) also have the potential to have a negativeimpact on biodiversity. This set of talks includes absolutely anythingthat isn’t a service or an agricultural product. Key sectors that are beingtargeted for immediate liberalization include fish and fish products,gems and minerals. Environmental measures designed to protectbiodiversity are also under the WTO’s NAMA spotlight. Packaging,marketing and labelling requirements, on both wood and fish productsfor example, have already been listed for further discussion.

Member states have also given the WTO the power to look at therelationship between trade rules and specific trade measures used invarious multilateral environmental agreements. The agreements inquestion include two of critical importance to biodiversity - theConvention on International Trade in Endangered Species and theCartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which regulates trade in geneticallymodified organisms.

4 [ghana] ifi’s and water privatization

In 2004 the World Bank approved a US$103million dollar loan for the privatization ofGhana’s urban water system, despite threeyears of active opposition by civil society. Theloan proposal is packaged as though theconcerns of the poor are a high priority. Itargues that existing state companies areinefficient and that private companies woulddeliver water to more people more effectively.However, privatization is targeted at waterservices in selected cities - where most of thepoor do not live. Moreover, the poor are likelyto be severely disadvantaged by the fact thatprofit-motivated companies will determineprices. The World Bank’s Project AppraisalDocument confirms that prices will rise, sinceit also points out that project loan debts haveto be serviced.

At least four major multinational companieshave expressed interest in bidding for thecontract: Biwater, Suez, Vivendi (now calledVeolia) and Saur. While the World Bank hasapproved the loan, the Ghanaian governmenthas not yet formally opened the biddingprocess. The Ghana National Coalition Againstthe Privatization of Water has stated that itsresistance to the privatization of water willcontinue and the ultimate objective is clear -access to potable water must be universallyavailable and guaranteed as a human right.

more information:Friends of the Earth Ghana:foe@foeghana.org

© f

oe g

han

a

© f

oe g

han

a

14 | foei

Worryingly, the same governments have resolutely ignored calls tomove this debate to the UN, even though (or perhaps because) thiscould mean that the WTO is allowed to define what trade measures – ifany – may be used in other international agreements. Ultimately, theWTO could even be empowered to make sure that nationalgovernments do not overstep the mark when implementing MEAs(Multilateral Environmental Agreements), limiting the domestic use oftrade measures meant to protect the environment and public health.

and the big winners are …

The big winners of the yard sale of publicly owned natural resources arethe transnational companies. Water companies, tourist industries,logging companies and oil and mining companies will all benefit to amajor extent from the privatization and commodification of publicassets like water and biodiversity. New and proposed internationalregimes that resulted from corporate lobby efforts, such as the inclusionof carbon sequestration activities in the Kyoto Protocol and theproposed regime on benefit sharing of genetic resources, are turningnatural resources like forests and genes into highly profitable corporateassets. Due to the pressure of corporate lobby groups in Brussels,Washington DC and other capitals, trade and investment liberalization

one public support for private control

rules are consistently being shaped around the interests oftransnational companies, consolidating their global expansion andremoving remaining obstacles. Corporations are a dominant player inthe global economy, but because of their structure, size and power theyfall largely outside democratic mechanisms of global governance. FoEIand other NGOs have documented the influence of corporate lobbygroups such as the International Chamber of Commerce or theBiotechnology Industry Organization on the WTO secretariat and keygovernments, promoting trade rules that protect and advance theirinterests. In our publication “Business Rules, Who Pays the Price” (FoEI,2003) we have documented the influence of powerful industries on theWTO rules and UN Treaties and the result of their actions on localcommunities. The case studies include Monsanto and the AmericanFarm Bureau pressuring the US government to force GeneticallyModified Organisms onto a hostile European consumer market throughthe WTO. Other documented examples of corporate power are theefforts of Exxon Mobil to undermine the United Nations FrameworkConvention on Climate Change and the role of the pharmaceuticalsector on the TRIPS (Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Propertyrights) agreement, blocking the distribution of cheap ‘generic’ drugs.

5 [indonesia] the new water resourceslaw and privatization

WATSAL program - world bank

In 1997, the World Bank concluded that itcould not continue to assist the water andirrigation sector in Indonesia without majorrestructuring or reform in the sector. So, inApril 1998 after the economic crisis, the WorldBank offered a loan program, the WaterResources Sector Adjustment Loan (WATSAL),to the Government of Indonesia to restructurethe water sector.

The offer was accepted and in 1999 a loanagreement of US$300 million was signed,with the money to be returned in 15 years andwith a grace period of three years. Loandisbursement would occur in three stages,with the last being under the condition thatthe Indonesian government would approvethe draft Water Resources Law.

the new water resources law.

On February 19, 2004, the Bill of WaterResources was passed into law by theIndonesian House of Representatives, despiteit being postponed several times due toobjections by farmers, city consumers,religious and community organizations, NGOsand academics. Their objections were based onaspects of the law that set the agenda for theprivatization and commercialisation of water.Articles in the law allow not only for provisionof drinking water but the occupation of waterresources, such as ground and river water andparts of rivers, by private parties, effectivelygiving them control of water for agriculturalirrigation, energy and industry.

Rather than attempting to develop watermanagement schemes using a moreintegrated system that pays attention toconservation and offers mechanisms to solvepossible water utilization conflicts, the law isdominated by economic interests and isstrongly influenced by the World Bank, whichhad essentially determined its substance.

occupation of water

A crucial part of the law is the stipulation ofWater Right, which has become the basis of theallocation and occupation of water resources tothe private sector. Through this instrument, theWater Resources Law provides a limit regardingthe form and amount of water that can beutilized by a community. Criteria are establishedfor the daily use of water giving priority tocommercial utilization, as exemplified by theAsian Development Bank Statement: “Watermust be utilized by those who render the mosteconomic advantage” (ADB, 2001). Thecommercial allocation and limitation of waterhas meant that communities will have to obtainpermits and pay for water for non-commercialactivities, which they had previously collected atno cost.

Additionally, the law introduces theCommercial-Use Right and the Business-UseRight, which effectively allows for the transferof control of water, from local and traditionalcommunities to the private sector, anddetermines the right of cultivation of existingwater resources. This is due to theestablishment of a permits based system ofaccess to water, developed under the law.While such bureaucracy is an impediment toless capable communities, this system favours

“Water must be utilized by

those who render the most

economic advantage”Asian Development Bank, 2001.

foei | 15

Corporations win as they are the ones who are regarded as the mostcost-effective and efficient providers of ‘eco-services’. Unfortunately forpeople, corporations do not have poverty reduction, sustainabledevelopment or the delivery of key resources to all people as their mainaim. Corporations have no official role in ensuring that people’s rights towater or a clean environment are met, but rather aim to comply withshareholder requirements for strong economic performance andmaximisation of profits. However, institutions that do have a mandateto reduce poverty such as the World Bank are still calling oncorporations to manage and distribute water or manage carbonsequestration projects.

why is privatization happening so much?

Governments acquiesce for different reasons. Some are ideological, someare self-serving and some are practical. Practical reasons include the factthat governments are faced with problems which they must pay for fromthe taxes they raise. Privatization offers the lure of taking some problems offgovernment hands and, often, at the same time providing a sum of money.This selling off of the family silver lets governments give the impression thatproblems have been dealt with or are, at least, now blameable on someoneelse whilst at the same time allowing them to exact less taxes.

Proponents of privatization claim that private corporations are so muchmore efficient than state run corporations that they can take control ofa resource, fix all the problems the state corporation/government hasfailed to address and amazingly make a healthy profit on top. The profitsthey create will then trickle down to the poor. A win-win situation as thestory goes. And if this doesn’t sway governments there are always thetactics of financial institutions like the World Bank and the InternationalMonetary Fund who will often only permit loans to a developingcountry if that country allows privatization of its assets by foreigncorporations. In addition, countries may only “enjoy the benefits of freetrade” pursuant to the World Trade Organisation if they agree, amongother things, to accept and protect a range of intellectual propertyrights including those over their own nature.

But what of ordinary people? Do they benefit from privatization? Thereare clearly losers: Indigenous People who are prevented from living intheir homelands because the land has been sold to be protected as apark and the new owners believe those people would damage the park;the person living on a dollar a day who traditionally lived adequately onself grown food and free water now struggles to pay a company forprivatised water to substitute for river water polluted by other industrialactivities or well water which is no longer available because the wellsource belongs to the company; the farmer in India who has developed

the private sector, who have the capacity toapply for a formal permit to occupy anddistribute water. A consequence has been theassignment of water resources to the privatesector who are increasingly monopolising theharvesting of water, and charging for its distribution.

privatization of drinking water and irrigation

Even though the Law does not explicitly usethe word “privatization”, it allows privateparties to play a role in the implementation ofwater management as well as being entitledto charge fees for the use of water services.The involvement of the private sector inseveral forms and stages of watermanagement clearly shows an agenda forprivatization.

The Water Resources law means thatagricultural activity will not only becomemore expensive as farmers are paying the newcosts of private water management, but alsobecause previous subsidies from theGovernment will cease. Particularly wet rice-field farmers will be affected, andconsequently may not be able to sustainthemselves. This will have implications onfood sovereignty and may result in Indonesiadepending on foreign imports of food.

constitution and violation

As a basic human right, the IndonesianConstitution of 1945 guarantees the equalaccess to water, and it is the responsibility ofthe State to provide it. Privatization andcommercialization of water managementviolates this right, and the Water ResourcesLaw limits the role of the State as a regulator.In practice this means that the State will haveno control over water management norensure the supply of good quality water.

The social role of the State should not besubstituted by private parties that have profitas its main goal, and vulnerable people insociety, the poor and sick, will be particularlyexposed and find it difficult to obtain healthywater for consumption.

In July 2004, WAHLI/Friends of the EarthIndonesia together with the Federation ofIndonesian Farmers Association, the IndigenousPeople Alliance and many other institutions,submitted a legal suit against the WaterResources Law to the Constitutional Court.

more information:WAHLI/Friends of the Earth Indonesia:www.walhi.or.id/

“The important branches of

production for state and

relating to the life of people

shall be occupied by state”. Indonesia Constitution, 1945.

“Earth, water and any

property contained in them

shall be occupied by state

and shall be optimally used

for people welfare”. Indonesia Constitution, 1945.

© w

alh

i/fo

e in

don

esia

16 | foei

one public support for private control

and grown basmati rice for generations is now prohibited fromretaining seed from season to season because it has been patented by awestern company; children who will be born into a world where theycannot share the nature around them unless they earn enough to buyor rent a slice of that bounty.

Are there winners? Financially some people are better off: for example,shareholders of the companies concerned. But even if they arefinancially better off are they better off in a broader sense if they areliving in a society where the increasing gap between rich and poorbreeds jealousy and crime; where people are dying from diarrhea andcholera because clean water is no longer affordable; where corporationsget stronger and communities and governments weaker; where thepursuit of corporate profit without fair and strong regulationencourages non-sustainable activity with all its repercussions for theenvironment; where life itself can be owned and patented?

In short, should our nature be for sale?

© f

réd

éric

cas

tell,

foe

fra

nce

foei | 17

part two | water privatization

© c

live

shir

ley/

gree

np

eace

18 | foei

two water privatization

Only a small proportion of the Earth’s watercirculates as freshwater. Most of this is storedin glaciers, leaving 1% available for thesurvival of all living beings outside the oceansand seas. The global distribution of this smallamount is very uneven. Availability dependson access to river basins and lakes for surfacewater, and to aquifers for ground water.

1 [paraguay] privatizing the guarani aquifer

The Cuenca del Plata watershed, which coversa vast area, from Brazil, Bolivia and Paraguay,through to Argentina and Uruguay, is LatinAmerica’s second largest watershed. It alsoincludes the Pantanal, the world’s largesttropical wetlands ecosystem. All in all, Cuencadel Plata represents 30% of the fresh wateravailable on the planet.

The groundwater Guarani Aquifer systemcovers an area of 1.2 million square kilometresin South America: 70% located in Brazil, 19% inArgentina, 6% in Paraguay and 5% in Uruguay.It is capable of yielding enough water to satisfythe needs of 360 million people.

Considering present water needs - for humanconsumption, agriculture and industry - andbearing in mind projected demands, it isperhaps unsurprising that this immense freshwater reservoir is beginning to attract theattention of numerous organizations,including the Organization of AmericanStates, the World Bank, and various nationally-based international co-operation agencies.

Traditionally, distribution and management ofwater in the region has been a public service.However, the legal framework is undergoingstructural changes to permit the introductionof private water services companies. Besidesthis threat of privatization, water resources inParaguay are being degraded and misused.Mining activities and the advance ofagribusiness, specifically in relation to soyplantations, have caused an increase in theexpropriation of natural resources, thedestruction of biodiversity and thecontamination of water. Governments in theregion are contributing to the destruction, by

introduction

foei | 19

Currently, human activities have a negative impact on the availability ofwater. The ongoing degradation of water-producing territories hasresulted in the progressive depletion of water suitable for consumption.Combined with the growing demand from increasing globalpopulations, industry and agriculture, the world’s water resources areshrinking faster than we can replenish them.

This is a threat to all people, but it is also an opportunity for some. Withits increasing scarcity, the value of water as an economic product hasincreased. Water is converted into a commodity to be bought and soldand subject to control by competitive forces in the market, as well astransnational water corporations.

pushing to develop 2100 miles of the regionalParaguay-Paraná river systems into a massiveindustrial waterway. Referred to as Hidrovía,this canal is primarily intended to lower thecost of exporting soybeans.

Facing the destruction of watersheds, riversand aquifers, many civil society groups inParaguay are researching and campaigning onthe underlying causes of these problems. Thiswork includes monitoring the operations,policies, strategies and projects ofinternational financial institutions (IFIs),which propose public-private partnerships asa solution. Such proposals are generallywholly inadequate, devised by staff in theirNorthern headquarters, without realknowledge of the needs of people living in thetargeted area. In particular, such partnershipsfurther concentrate public resources in privatehands.

It is important to note that those activitieswhich require the most water – and thereforethreaten the quality of the aquifer - are alsothose being heavily promoted by IFIs. Massivedeforestation to make way for monoculturecrops is diminishing the infiltration capacity ofthe aquifer’s recharge areas - in other words, itis decreasing the soil’s capacity to adsorbwater. At the same time, the highly toxic

products used in large-scale export-orientedcrop production - pesticides, herbicides andfertilizers - are also beginning to pollute theaquifer. Furthermore, IFIs such as the InterAmerican Development Bank (IADB) and theAndean Development Corporation (CAF) arepromoting industrial development planswhich include large scale infrastructureschemes such as road corridors, industrialwaterways and mega-dams. Their aim is tocreate a new and globally-competitiveindustrial region. However, such developmentwould further pollute the aquifer and lessenthe efficacy of its recharge areas.

Indeed, industrial development on this scalecould conflict directly with any potentialefforts to introduce conservation-orientedobjectives to protect key ecosystems, whichguarantee the recharge of the aquifer andkeep its water clean and reliable. It couldsignificantly increase the risks of anyprivatization process, since the IFIs concernedwould undoubtedly be discouraged frompromoting conservation of the aquifer at theexpense of industrial development.

Sobrevivencia/Friends of the Earth Paraguay israising awareness of these issues with localcommunities and authorities. They aretargeting local and national legislators as wellas regional agreements promoted by theWorld Bank and the Inter AmericanDevelopment Bank. Sobrevivencia also worksat the micro-level to strengthen the watermanagement capacity of communities,sharing examples of good communitymanagement and the restoration ofwatersheds and aquifers. Other efforts focuson offering alternatives to agribusiness andpursuing policies that promote public andecological health, food security and enhancedpolitical participation.

more information:Sobrevivencia / Friends of the Earth Paraguay:www.sobrevivencia.org.pyfurther reading: International Rivers Network:www.irn.org

© ir

ma

pop

ovic

, zel

ena

akci

ja

© ir

ene

reve

l

20 | foei

two water privatization

Humanity is at a crossroads and billions of people face a grim, water-scarce future. Of the 4 billion cases of diarrhea each year, 2.2 millionpeople die unnecessarily. 6 million people have been blinded by Trachoma.200 million people are infected with schistosomiasis. Intestinal wormsaffect 10% of the population of the developing world. Preventable water-related diseases kill 5 million people every year, 4 million of them children.Today, an estimated 1.2 billion people lack access to a safe water supplyand 2.4 billion do not have adequate sanitation.

These are disturbing statistics, but they are not irreversible. Technologyexists and resources are there to deal with this crisis. A fraction of thetrillion dollars a year governments spend on the military would make itpossible to go well beyond the UN Millennium Development Goals onclean water and sanitation. Investment in water, unlike war, would savean estimated 125 billion dollars a year in direct medical expenses andcosts associated with lower economic productivity related topreventable water-related diseases.

Unfortunately, the solution chosen by governments does not focus onincreasing public investment. Instead, international policy makers,lobbied heavily by the private sector, are facilitating increased privateinvestment and management as the way out of the crisis. The EuropeanUnion, for example, is trying to reclassify water within the WTO General

water – a human right

2 [canada] privatization,contamination and nationalization

In Canada, even with an abundance offreshwater, it cannot be taken for granted. Youmust respect the water that you have or sufferthe consequences, as the people of the smalltown of Walkerton, Ontario discovered. Sevenlives were lost and more than 2000 peoplehospitalized when the town’s water sourcewas contaminated with E. coli bacteria as aresult of mismanagement.

The commodification of water diversion andextraction from the Great Lakes is a divisiveissue in Canada. Groups in both Canada andthe US are concerned that a recent proposalby the 8 governors of the Great Lakes states,supported by two Canadian provinces, directlythreatens these lakes, which form the world’slargest freshwater ecosystem. In simple terms,the proposal would establish a scheme forauthorizing diversions of Great Lakes waters,yet it imposes no explicit limit on the quantityof water that may be diverted. Nor is there alimit on the duration or term defined for suchdiversions or the purpose or geographic regionfor which such waters may be used.

On the issue of privatization of municipalsystems, there have been more positivedevelopments. A long-standing privatization inHamilton, one of Canada’s largest cities, wastaken back into the public system after years ofpoor performance, illegal sewage dumpingand high costs. Popular resistance also stoppeda proposed privatization of wastewaterservices in Vancouver. These are great victoriesfor grassroots organizations in Canada.

more information:Council of Canadians: www.canadians.org

foei | 21

Agreement on Trade and Services (GATS) so it is defined as a service thatcan be bought and sold. International Financial Institutions promotewater privatization as they often add it as a condition for new loans to,and debt relief for, developing countries.

Meanwhile, corporations involved in the management and distributionof water haven’t lived up to the expectations placed upon them bygovernments. Examples of corporate crime are rampant. Bribes,unaffordable increases in water prices for the world’s poorest, cuttingoff water supplies and under-investment in water infrastructure,distribution and quality are examples of corporate misconduct forwhich they need to be held accountable.

Globally, there are many grassroots campaigns on the issue of waterprivatization, including several carried out by Friends of the Earthgroups. However, ongoing struggles against water privatization incountries such as Uruguay, the Philippines, South Africa and Bolivia allneed continued support.

Friends of the Earth International’s affiliate, the Council of Canadians,has begun the Blue Planet Project, an international effort to protect theworld’s freshwater from the growing threats of trade and privatization.At its core is the Treaty Initiative to Share and Protect the Global Water

Commons. It is a call to protect water as something we all share, and torecognize water as one of those common elements that are too preciousto turn over to private greed and the faceless global marketplace. It is acommitment for ourselves, our communities, and our representatives topursue new and better solutions than those that threaten the earth andour fundamental human rights.

Access to water is a human right. However, privatization threatenspeople’s access to clean water. Friends of the Earth will not accept theright to this resource, so fundamental to life, being taken away from thepeople. Only by recognizing water as a human right can we assure waterjustice now and into the future.

more information:Blue Planet Project: www.blueplanetproject.net/

3 [central and eastern europe] water privatization

The accession of Central and EasternEuropean countries to the European Unionhas many parallels with developing countries’experience of the WTO’s General Agreementon Trade in Services (GATS). Both pushcountries into privatizing their public services,including water. The Czech Republic is the onlycountry to have yielded thus far, with virtuallyall water services already privatized.

The EU demands higher standards for waterquality, water treatment and the provision ofwater. It also provides financial assistance forprivatization schemes. While regulations statethat these funds should not go to privatecompanies, in practice, loopholes in theregulations mean that companies do getaccess to these funds. The EuropeanCommission also actively promotes public-private partnerships which facilitate theprivatization of water services. As a result,established water companies from France,Germany and Britain will be able to access thewater services markets of Eastern and CentralEurope with European funding.

Slovakia, for example, has until 2015 to meetEU requirements for sewage treatment plants,calculated to cost the country some threebillion euros. Some funds are alreadyavailable, but it is quite clear that these areinsufficient. Privatization schemes are alsoevident in nearly all non-accession countries,including many of those that were part of theformer Soviet Bloc. In Ukraine, for example,water privatization is currently the focus of amajor public debate.

more information:Friends of the Earth Ukraine: www.zsfoe.orgFriends of the Earth Slovakia:foe@changenet.sk

© f

oe s

lova

kia

© f

oe s

lova

kia

© f

oe s

lova

kia

22 | foei

two water privatization

impeding access to water throughpublic finance

‘Just a few years ago, privatization was

heralded as an elixir that would rejuvenate

lethargic, wasteful infrastructure industries and

revitalize stagnating economies. But today,

privatization is viewed differently - and often

critically. Skepticism and outright hostility

toward privatization are not limited to a few

radical protestors.’World Bank economist Ioannis N. Kessides, June 2004

4 uruguayans unite againstwater sell-off

In Uruguay, the public water utility OSE has upto now, delivered safe and affordable water tomore than 90% of the country’s 3.5 millionpopulation. Recently, this essential resourcehas been under the threat of privatization bymultinational water corporations. Experiencehas shown that they largely operate withoutpublic input and in the sole interest of theirshareholders, have a history ofmismanagement, and do not guaranteeresources to adequately protect waterresources. However, on the 31st October 2004,in a victory for social justice, Uruguayanpeople voted to make water a human right inthe Constitution, setting the basis for itsexclusive public, participative and sustainablemanagement.

water privatization in uruguay

In 1992, citizen opposition stopped thegovernment from massive water sell-offs. Thegovernment gradually prevailed, however,turning water management over to privatehands at every opportunity during thefollowing decade. While the state-owned OSEwater company experienced few problemsduring its tenure, private companies areconsistently delivering low-quality, unevenwater supplies that leave many peoplewithout water. The promise of privatization i.e.companies having the management expertiseand resources to efficiently deliver water hasnot materialized.

Nowhere in Uruguay has the privatizationpromise gone more unfulfilled than in thetouristy Department of Maldonado. In 1998,despite strong opposition from the OSE unionand the communities of Maldonado, thegovernment gave a private concession to the"Aguas de la Costa" consortium, a localsubsidiary of French water giant SUEZ, tomanage water for about 2,500 users of theMaldonado province. Since the takeover,consumers have had to pay water rates tentimes higher than previously, and in returnhave had to deal with broken pipes, smellyand undrinkable water, and low reservoir

© r

edes

/foe

uru

guay

foei | 23

Public banks like the World Bank have been at the centre of thecorporate drive to commodify and privatize the natural world andassociated services. As a result, these resources are increasingly difficultto access. Water is undoubtedly at the top of the list.

The World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and various regionalbanks have been proactively pushing water privatization in the poorest,most indebted countries, where the negative impacts are most stronglyfelt. Such privatization takes place at the water capture level through toservice delivery.

Through loan conditions, and direct financial support, internationalfinancial institutions (IFIs) promote industrial use of water sources.Examples of such investments are water-greedy gold mines anddestructive large hydro dams. Industrial use and contamination of largequantities of fresh water endanger water supplies for local communities.Indigenous peoples and women bear the biggest burden as they aremost dependent on access to water for their livelihoods and activities.

Furthermore, the banks and the Fund routinely insist on theprivatization of water services as a precondition for loans and for debtrelief. The World Bank argues on its web site that in developingcountries “The private sector, under contract with the public sector, hasoften yielded better results” than the public sector in providing access toreliable water services. The World Bank’s private sector developmentstrategy of April 2002, explicitly designates public services as ‘frontier’sectors for private investment. This year’s report of the World Panel onFinancing Water Infrastructure, led by former IMF Managing DirectorMichel Camdessus, argues for IFIs to increase guarantees and otherpublic subsidies for private investors in water infrastructure and supply.

Regional banks follow a similar approach to water delivery. The AsianDevelopment Bank (ADB), although viewing water as a ‘socially vital’economic good, extols the virtues of private sector involvement. TheADB argues that water should be allocated to and used by those whocan best afford it – so called ‘high-value’ users. Furthermore, the ADBsupports the establishment of markets for transferable water rights.

levels caused by mismanagement. Sincewater-for-profit schemes per definition meanthat no one can have free water, companiesremoved public springs upon which hundredsof poor people were dependent.

However, the government’s drive to privatizehas not been deterred. In 2000, thegovernment awarded a 30-year water supplycontract to Uragua LTD, a subsidiary of Aguasde Bilbao, a Spanish public utility. Thecompany was to supply water to the moredensely populated and touristy westernsection of Maldonado. In less than a year, thecompany’s negligence caused a pipe to break,leaving the town of Piriapolis without waterfor four days. The company allowed liquidresiduals to overflow, polluting water, whichwas then diverted to a harbor. In one town thestate’s own laboratories twice recommendedthat water be boiled before drinking, withconsumers all over the region complainingthat the water left residues and brown spotsin sinks and toilets. Nevertheless, Maldonadocitizens pay the highest rates of the country.

By 2003 the government could no longer turna blind eye. It announced it would terminatethe Uragua’s contract and OSE would providethe service again. This was a great victory, but

so far only an empty promise. The company isstill operating and, in fact, has generatedhandsome profits during the 2004 touristseason.

"Water Yes. Robbery No." is the motto of theManantiales Promotion League, one of theMaldonado citizen organizations protestingthe high prices and lack of access to waterunder private management. In theneighbourhood of San Antonio III, thecommunity successfully protested theelimination of the public spring. The companynot only left the spring alone, but now alsomaintains it. Still the local government mustpay for the service.

water – a human right in uruguay!

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) hasprovided the strongest political interventionon behalf of the privatization of water. In themiddle of the 2002, at the most dramaticmoment of the Uruguayan economic crisis,the IMF asked the government to deregulateand privatize several state-run sectors of theeconomy. The government then signed aLetter of Intent in which they agreed to reduceits control on the water sector to aid newprivate investors.

When the "agreement" between theUruguayan government and the IMF wasannounced, a number of social organizationsjoined to stop the privatization of the watersector. The National Commission in Defenceof Water and Life, which includes Friends ofthe Earth Uruguay, together with a coalitionof union organizers, students, policymakers,and people from all walks of life, said "NO" tothe government’s sell-off of water resourcesto trans-national corporations, and through ademocratic process, wrote and presented aproposal to reform the Uruguayanconstitution to declare access to clean, safewater a fundamental human right. Despitestrong opposition and lobbying from theprivate water sector, on a historical day, morethat 60% of the people of Uruguay voted onthe 31st October in favour of the proposal.This outcome will prohibit water concessionsto corporations and sets the basis for theestablishment of participatory managementmechanisms that involve local communitiesand preserve water for future generations.

more information:Friends of the Earth Uruguay: www.redes.org.uyFederacion F. OSE (Water Union):www.ffose.org.uyReal World Radio: www.realworldradio.fm

24 | foei

Policies, programs and projects of IFIs endanger people’s right to water.In this publication, the case studies from the Philippines, Indonesia,Ghana, Bolivia and Uruguay show that through IFI involvement, water isbeing taken away from people. Shockingly, the poorest may even findthemselves buying bottled water, if a lack of access to piped waterforces them to buy it from street vendors. ADB-induced waterprivatization in Manila resulted in a 500% price increase, continuedleakages, bad access to clean water and a cholera outbreak (see casestudy above). In rural areas, the ADB policy on transferable water rightslead to Asian farmers selling their water rights for other, moreproductive uses. Such developments have significant knock-on effectsfor people’s livelihoods and food security.

The case against water privatization is growing. Case after case showsthat promises of greater efficiency are not being fulfilled. More andmore people find themselves priced out of the water market, waterdelivery and water quality have hardly improved and water sources arebeing depleted rapidly. This failure to deliver is unacceptable. People arerising up and demanding control over their water resources. In the nowfamous rejection of water privatization in Cochabamba, Bolivia, theWorld Bank initially insisted that water services be privatized as acondition for receiving a $25 million loan. The World Bank explicitly

two water privatization

stated that ‘a proper system of charging’ be used and that ‘No subsidiesshould be given to ameliorate the increase in water tariffs inCochabamba’. This left families with an income of around $100 permonth spending $20 on water. Not surprisingly, the residents ofCochabamba took to the streets and forced the company in question –Bechtel - out of the country. Together with community groups, tradeunions and irrigation farmers, the government agreed to set up analternative transparent public utility with a high degree of participationand sense of ownership.

Fearing a growing public relations problem, the World Bank is nowbacking away from the term privatization in public documents andstatements. Importantly, a June 2004 report from a World Bankeconomist argues that the privatization of infrastructure has been‘oversold and misunderstood’. According to the report, the success ofprivatization efforts varies greatly by sector, and water supply is clearlyone of the ‘more problematic’ sectors.

5 [philippines] cholera and higher water rates

Water privatization is an ongoing story in thePhilippines. Water utilities were originallyowned by the government but financialpressure and backing from the World Bankand Asian Development Bank have resulted inthe privatization of this public service.

In urban areas, specifically in Manila but alsoin other cities, the consequence of waterprivatization has been a substantial increasein water rates, even while many people stilllack water connections. An outbreak ofcholera and gastroenteritis has also beenreported. In Manila the companiesresponsible are Maynilad Water owned by asubsidiary of the French water corporationSuez, and Manila Water owned by notoriousUS corporation Bechtel.

Outside urban areas, local water utilities inthe communities have also been the target oftransnational corporations such as Suez. Forexample a community in Calapan, are facingthe possibility of having to pay for the supplyof water, which they had access to previouslywithout cost. In rural communities, people arecompeting for water resources with bananaand pineapple plantations. Watershed areas

are often classified as agricultural zones, thusgiving corporations the justification to convertthese lands into plantations. Furthermore,mining operators have auxiliary rights to thecontrol of water in their project areas. Bothmining and plantation companies have beencontaminating aquifers.

Several NGOs in the Philippines have beenworking closely with different sectors tooppose the privatization of water utilities.

more information:Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center –Kasama sa Kalikasan/Friends of the EarthPhilippines: www.lrcksk.org Jean Marie M. Ferraris:bluaries_47430@yahoo.com

© f

oe p

hili

pp

ines

© f

oe p

hili

pp

ines

foei | 25

Water privatization, combined with the opening up of water marketsthat are about to be ‘locked-in’ by the WTO’s services negotiations, hasonly clear benefits for Northern-based water transnationals such asThames Water, RWE, Suez and Veolia Environnement. These corporationsstand to gain access to multiple new markets across the world.

FoEI challenges the view that water is little more than a tradablecommodity. Water is vital for human life and livelihoods and for theecological balance of our planet. A person’s right to a “standard of livingadequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family”,enshrined in the UN’s Universal Declaration on Human Rights in 1948,has to include access to water - because without water, life is notpossible. As such, FoEI calls on public banks with the mandate toalleviate poverty through sustainable development to put people’s rightto water at the forefront of their activities.

more information:www.ifiwatchnet.orgwww.foei.org/ifiwww.waterjustice.orgwww.wateractivist.org

6 [scotland] scottish water, a privatecompany under public control

Scotland is not short of water. However, new EUregulations on drinking water quality haveforced the Scottish Executive to reconsider howwater is managed in Scotland. Their responsehas been partial privatization of the waterindustry, raising extra investment, which has,for example, helped to address the problem ofraw sewage being dumped in the ocean.

Critically however, Scottish Water remains apublicly owned company. The majority of itsshares belong to the state and it is answerableto the Scottish Parliament. Scottish Water isalso strictly regulated - by the Water IndustryCommissioner, the Drinking Water QualityRegulator, the Scottish Environment ProtectionAgency and the Health and Safety Executive.

However, the new company has massivelyreduced its workforce and prices have risen,though mostly for the commercial rather thanthe domestic sector. Apart from higher pricesthere has been little encouragement to reducewater use. There is no legally guaranteed right towater in Scotland, but in practice Scottish Watercannot disconnect people for non-payment.

7 [colombia]privatizing community aqueducts

Under pressure from the Inter AmericanDevelopment Bank, public enterprisespreviously responsible for the management ofColombia’s hydrological basins are beingprivatized. Even aqueducts are targeted forprivatization, despite the fact that localcommunities financed and built them andhave managed them for generations.

As part of this privatization process, theColombian government has also launched aninitiative to create water basin councils.However, far from being an instrument toimprove citizen involvement, these councilsincrease private sector control. Participation inthe councils is dependent upon levels of wateruse by so-called “stakeholders”, meaning thatthe interests of the largest water consumers –primarily industry and plantation owners -tend to supersede the interests of thepeasants and local communities that havetraditionally managed the water basins.

more information:CENSAT Agua Viva/Friends of the EarthColombia: www.censat.org

© f

oe c

olom

bia

26 | foei

9 [nigeria] denying accessto drinking water

8 [el salvador]water as a social problem

Although not the result of deliberategovernment policy, the privatization of waterresources in Nigeria is happening - andhappening rapidly. In the 1970’s, the Nigeriangovernment built many large dams forirrigation and to provide water for thepopulation. However, the dams were notmaintained and water systems havedeteriorated. To counter this, the governmentstarted to grant licenses to private companiesto collect and distribute water.

Involving the private sector means waterprovision is no longer seen as a social service.Water has become a tradable commodity, aproduct that must be paid for. For the rich elitethis is not a problem, but for Nigeria’s poor itis another matter entirely. For them, thesituation is compounded by the pollution ofstreams and rivers, which the rural peopleoriginally depended on for fresh water.Industrial effluent and pollution from oilcompanies empty directly into these naturalwater bodies and have rendered them unsafe.As a result the poorest are effectively deniedaccess to safe drinking water – because theymust pay.

Government licensing of water services hasalso proved to be a problem because licensingis not based on a particular company’s abilityto supply quality water or increasedistribution. True, several sub-standard watercompanies have been shut down by thecontrolling federal agency; however, manyothers still flood the market with unclean anduncertified water for consumption.Furthermore, companies are mainlyinterested in providing water to richneighbourhoods in the cities. In many ruralareas, the poor are increasingly cut off fromwater supplies and forced to buy their waterfrom water sellers, which is prohibitivelyexpensive. Thus villagers, mostly women andchildren, still trek many miles to collect waterfrom what are now polluted streams.

Local environmental groups have started tocampaign against water privatization. A keyconcern is the licensing of companies who donot manage water tables sustainably, sincethe uncontrolled private and commercialdigging of boreholes for water will eventuallydeplete underground aquifers. It is unknownhow many tens of thousands of boreholes arein operation in Nigeria. Thus ERA/FoE Nigeriaand other local groups are developing aninventory of existing boreholes, to monitorand ascertain the viability of current waterabstraction levels.

more information:Environmental Rights Action/Friends of theEarth Nigeria: www.eraction.org

Only 60% of El Salvador’s population hasaccess to running water and the countrysuffers from devastating water-relatedproblems. Very often the water can not beconsidered safe due to high levels of pollution,and gastrointestinal disease due to waterpollution is the second largest cause of visitsto hospitals. Water has gone from anenvironmental problem to a social one, andnow is becoming a political problem as localgroups take their message to the streets,blockading main roads to demand thegovernment provide proper water services.

Despite an annual rainfall of 1.8 metres, waterlevels in aquifers are decreasing by 1.0 metreevery year, both as a result of over-exploitationof aquifers and the destruction of watercatchment areas. Ninety percent of thecountry’s natural water is contaminated, andhalf the population drinks untreated water.

Water is thus a crucial social and politicaltopic in El Salvador. The government has so farfailed to address the issue, presentingprivatization of water management as theonly solution. This stance comes afterpressure from organizations such as the WorldBank, which made water privatization arequirement of a 1996 US$24 million loan.However, popular protests have forced thegovernment to declare that privatization ofwater management will not go ahead. ElSalvadorans are now campaigning to have the

government take a more active role in watermanagement. They are asking for nationalwater policies to be overseen by the Ministerof the Environment, covering watercatchment areas, watersheds and river basins.

more information:Friends of the Earth El Salvador:www.cesta-foe.org Public Citizen’s critical Mass Energy andEnvironment Programme:www.citizen.org/cmep/Water/cmep_Water/reports/el_salvador/index.cfm

© f

oe n

iger

ia

© f

oe n

iger

ia

foei | 27

As an example of a good government wateragency, the Penang water authority isrecognized as one of the region’s best watermanagers. Its existence proves that there isroom for good state-controlled wateragencies. But the Penang water authority isnow being corporatized and the company islisted on the stock exchange, while themajority of stocks is still controlled by thestate government. In other Malaysian states,water privatization is a total mess – withcountless examples of water contracts beinggiven to the profiteering cronies of thegovernment.

more information:Sahabat Alam Malaysia/Friends of the EarthMalaysia: www.foe-malaysia.org

11 [palestine] occupation andprivatization of water aquifers

Following its occupation of the West Bank andthe Gaza Strip in 1967, Israel took control ofPalestinian water resources. In the West Bank,well water abstraction by Palestiniancommunities was put under tight control.Furthermore, any water development, drillingor building of infrastructure now required apermit from the military “water officer”. Not asingle permit has so far been issued fordomestic or agricultural use, for any of theareas that would benefit from the main sourceof underground water known as the westernaquifer. As a result, Palestinians have had tosustain themselves with the same quantity ofwater available to them forty years ago,despite a significant increase in population.

Immediately after the occupation, Israel alsobegan to drill its own groundwater wells,tapping into the same western aquifer. Oneyear on, settlements began to appear onPalestinian lands and hilltops and furtherwells were drilled in close proximity toPalestinian water resources. The settlers’standard of living benefited dramatically, withwater available for gardens, fields andswimming pools. The average waterconsumption of a Jewish settler is now twentytimes that of a Palestinian.

Since the start of the second Intifada, inSeptember 2000, Israeli occupation forceshave uprooted over 982 000 trees (some ofwhich were over 1000 years old), destroyed907 reservoirs and agricultural water pools,dismantled 687 km of water networks andruined 243 wells. They have also demolished4500 homes and confiscated and razed to theground tens of thousands of hectares ofproductive agricultural land.

Furthermore, this already very limited accessto water and agricultural land has significantlydeteriorated since the Israelis began to buildthe Wall. The completed ‘first phase’ ofconstruction is in the northern part of theWest Bank, where the most fertile lands - thePalestinian ‘bread basket’ – are located. In thisphase alone, much of the Palestinians’ keyagricultural and water resources – including 36groundwater wells - have been confiscated.

According to international law, Palestiniansshould have complete sovereignty over all theeastern aquifer resources beneath the WestBank. They should also have at least equalrights to water from the western andnortheastern aquifers, as these are alsorecharged almost entirely from the West Bank.In 1999, experts estimated compensation fordamages to Palestinian water resources byIsraeli settlers at a minimum of $US 45 billion.

more information:Friends of the Earth Palestine:www.foepalestine.orgPalestinian Environmental NGOs Network:www.pengon.org, www.stopthewall.orgApplied Research Institute Jerusalem:www.arij.orgPalestinian Hydrology Group: www.phg.orgPalestinian Academic Society for the Study ofInternational Affairs: www.passia.org

10 [malaysia] good public governance

© f

oe m

alay

sia

28 | foei

12 [australia] positive flows imposed by government

Australia, as the driest inhabited continentand with a rural sector that is increasinglycontrolled by large corporations, has ongoingstruggles regarding access to water. As aresult, in recent years the concept of`environmental flows` has gained widespreadsupport amongst many state government andsome federal government authorities. Theenvironmental flow is the minimum amountof water required to ensure the ecologicalsurvival of any particular river system, takinginto account the seasonal nature of theseflows, for instance spring floods. Theenvironmental flow which is determined for aparticular river, which might be perhaps 40%of the overall flow, is then reserved for theriver system. In many instances this meansthat there is a water shortage for other users,for example the water intensive irrigators whopractise unsustainable agriculture. Given that

the overall amount of available water isreduced, users are compelled to make theiruse of water more efficient if they are not tosee production levels drop. This drives anoverall improvement in water management inthe catchments where it is applied, as well ashelping to ensure the ecological survival ofthreatened river systems.

more information:Friends of the Earth Australia:www.foe.org.au

© ir

ene

reve

l©

iren

e re

vel

foei | 29

part three | selling forests and parks to loggersand tourist companies

© f

oe la

tvia

30 | foei

three selling forests and parks to loggers and tourist companies

a tragedy of thecommons?

Talk about a corporate win-win-win-win-win-

win situation! Shell or Exxon could “invest” in a

precious protected area, sell the timber from

the forest as Forestry Stewardship Council-

certified, plant eucalyptus on the grasslands

and receive carbon credits for it, sell the genetic

resources to bioprospecting institutions, sell

fresh water and fuelwood to nearby local

communities, and, on top of it all, give itself

a permit for “sustainable oil exploration”

in the area!Miguel Lovera, Coordinator Global Forest Coalition, in Forest Cover 11,

February 2004.

1 [australia] forest and plantationprivatization in victoria

Neo-liberal policies supporting theprivatization of state assets have been thefashion in Australia for the past two decades.The broader community has very rarely hadany substantial gains as far as conservationand environmental outcomes are concerned.At every opportunity, industry has attemptedto undermine any critical analysis of theiroperations using a combination of bullyingtactics and public relations to mitigate fordisasters. An example of this has been theprivatization and sale of 180 000 hectares ofex-government-controlled plantation andnative forestlands in Victoria.

the birth of the victorian plantation corporation

In the 1990’s the Victorian State Government‘relinquished’ control of the State’s plantationassets and created the Victorian PlantationCorporation (VPC). This corporation wasgranted its own legislation and also cameunder the State Owned Enterprises Act in 1992.

The VPC originally controlled about 170 000hectares of land throughout Victoria, includingdifferent types of tree plantations as well as oldgrowth forest and cool temperate rainforest.The VPC legislation allowed the forests to beexcised from the land and the leasehold, heldin perpetuity, allows for harvesting andestablishing of plantations on that land.

non-enforceable codes

VPC also benefited from the redrafting in the1990’s of the Victorian Code of ForestPractices. It was designed to make it verydifficult to enforce, which was done largely toplacate Amcor, now called PaperlinX, a majorpaper company which had plantations andnon-plantation land in the Strzelecki andGippsland regions of Victoria.

The Code is only enforceable through a strongcouncil, which is willing to demand that theenvironmental care principles beimplemented, or the Victorian Civil andAdministrative Tribunal. However, a procedureat this Tribunal is often too expensive forcommunity groups. In reality, theimplementation depends mainly on voluntaryagreements between industry and theauthority. Occasionally these agreements

include full community participation when itsuits the company. Once it encroaches onindustry’s economic assets, the mood of theindustry changes markedly.

Alterations to the State’s Planning Scheme in1993 meant that local councils, not the State,were made responsible for enforcing the Codeof Forest Practice on private land, a difficult taskconsidering their extremely limited resources.One legal battle which FoE won in 1995concerning private land logging in a domesticwater supply catchment, revealed that the localcouncil had not been on site for 10 years!

Moreover, the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act(FFG) supposedly protects threatened speciesand communities throughout Victoria, but itdoes not apply to private land.

impacts of plantation forestry

In 1997 locals found that VPC had beenexpanding their hardwood plantations bylogging high conservation value old growthforests and cool temperate rainforest buffers.The logging of non-plantation trees, under theguise of plantation logging, infuriated localsand it was this act that was one of thecatalysts for community monitoring takingplace in the Strzeleckis.

foei | 31

Is there a tragedy of the commons?

According to the proponents of privatizing forests and other preciousecosystems, there is. They see the fact that the earth’s biological wealthis, de facto, a common heritage of mankind, as the main cause ofenvironmental degradation. In their vision, people will only be willing tomanage an asset carefully if it is their personal property. Thus,governments all over the world have started to sell watersheds andbiologically rich areas like protected areas and primary forests tocompanies and private organizations. However, the fact that a companyreceives a de facto property right over a piece of land or water sourcedoes not imply that it will automatically manage that land or watersource in a sustainable manner. As the experiences with waterprivatization in countries as varied as Bolivia, Nigeria and Uruguaydemonstrate, from a solely economic, profit-oriented perspective, it onlymakes sense to manage water as cheaply as possible even when itmeans the depletion of water resources and to sell low quality wateronly to those who can afford it. In most cases customers do not haveanother place to go anyway, as the water company has been granted ade facto monopoly.

The same goes for forests and other biologically diverse ecosystems.Regretfully, as calculated by the Centre for International ForestryResearch1 and other institutions, from a purely economic point of viewsustainable forest management does not make sense. In the currentmarket it is much more profitable to simply plunder all the timber,and/or, even more efficiently, replace the forest with a large-scalemonoculture tree plantation of rapid-growing -often exotic- species.This sad economic reality has already led to the disappearance ofmillions of hectares of tropical forests in countries like Indonesia,Malaysia and Brazil. In fact, it can be seen as one of the main underlyingcauses of forest loss2.

Economists and other policy-makers have recognized for many yearsthat unregulated economies deplete natural resources as their non-monetary values are ignored, euphemistically calling this a “marketfailure”. So they developed another strategy to squeeze the earth’sprecious resources into economic realities. First of all, they proposed toensure that all aspects of forests, water resources and other naturalresources are valued in monetary terms. Fascinating economic modelshave been developed to translate the economic value of freshwater, thevalue of the genetic information found in a tropical forest, the value ofthe carbon sequestration function of a peat bog, or simply the aestheticvalue of a landscape like the Masai Mara in Kenya, into monetary terms.

It is well recognised that past clearing practiceshave left the entire bioregion depleted of itsoriginal vegetation cover. Less than 2% of theoriginal vegetation remains protected inreserves. Much of the VPC hardwood areas inthe Strzeleckis contained remnant areas of cooltemperate rainforest, which faces an uncertainfuture on mainland Australia. This forestrequires large buffer zones of eucalyptus forestto protect it from the effects of wildfire and tominimize the impacts of tree fall that canwound beech trees, allowing the Myrtle Wiltpathogen, which is air and water borne, toenter wounds in the trees. However, bufferzones for cool temperate rainforest on privateland are not mandatory.

In some areas plantations have beenestablished right up to the edge of rainforeststands, meaning that when plantationlogging occurs, the risks of wounding beechtrees and stirring up the Wilt spores areincreased substantially. These plantations arealso open to the effects of wind throw, wherehigh winds can knock over remnant trees.

subsidizing hancock

In 1998 a subsidiary of John Hancock FinancialServices, the Hancock Timber Resource Group,

purchased rights to log the assets of VPC,under a 99-year leasehold agreement.Ownership of the land was retained by theState, but to all intents and purposes the landwas privately owned.

In 2001, Hancock purchased the assets ofAustralian Paper Plantations (APP), whoseland was based in Victoria. Most of the areasin the northern Strzeleckis that were notunder the control of VPC now came under theprivate ownership of Hancock.

Thanks to the efforts of local Strzeleckicampaigners, Hancock embarked on avoluntary moratorium of not logging nativeforests within its land base, however thismoratorium did not extend into areas ofindigenous tree plantations that had theappearance of 30-40 year-old native forest.

In 2000, Hancock announced that they wouldbe embarking on Forest Stewardship Council(FSC) certification of the assets that werepreviously owned by VPC. In 2004 they werethe first to be awarded such a certificate inAustralia. However, forest campaigners arestill waiting for the improved managementand community relations which are supposedto be the hallmark of FSC.

It should also be pointed out that privatizationof the plantation base in Victoria means inpractice that the purchaser does not have topay for the water that these plantationsconsume. Hancock plantations may be using inthe vicinity of 1.3 million litres of water peryear, which effectively over 99 years, adds up tobillions of dollars worth of water subsidies inthe driest continent on earth. Much of Victoriahas been in drought since 1992 and furtherrainfall decreases of 30% per annum areexpected under greenhouse effect scenarios.

In basic terms privatization has delivered lessaccountability and legislative control, adecrease in community participation in thedecision making processes, and decliningpublic disclosure of assets, wood volume andcontractual arrangements.

more information:Friends of the Earth Melbourne.Friends of Gippsland Bush.Hancock Watch: www.hancock.forests.org.au

© f

oe a

ust

ralia

32 | foei

three selling forests and parks to loggers and tourist companies

renewed loan for Georgia’s forest sector, regardless the fact that it willbe much harder to deal with overexploitation and other forms of forestdestruction once all the forests are in private hands.

The World Bank, USAID and other believers in the great benefits of thefree markets also enthusiastically promoted the combination of theprivatization of protected areas and tourism, by painting nice dreamsabout small groups of nature-loving eco-tourists who would givethousands of dollars to respectfully take a peek at the area. Alas, in thewild unregulated world of “market failures” and other economic forces,so-called eco-tourism projects tend to form a rapidly increasing threatto some of the most beautiful areas in the world.

Recently, in September 2003, the World Parks Congress in Durban, SouthAfrica, took another step towards global corporate control overprotected areas, allegedly a ‘mere’ 12% of the global terrestrial surface,through its emphasis on “public-private partnerships”. The BiodiversityConvention put its stamp of approval on this big sale at its seventhConference of the Parties in February 2004.

Countries have finally divorced themselves from any real responsibilityto protect natural areas and the people dependent on them. In Ecuadorand Russia, the governments took the advice of the IMF to ‘close your

Subsequently, the so-called “Washington consensus” proposed creatingmarkets for these values. This informal network of neo-liberaleconomists at the World Bank, the US government and theirgovernmental and non-governmental allies suddenly saw a chance tofit this abstract thing called nature into their day-to-day logics of “letthe market do it and it will be done”. Creating markets for protectedareas, carbon sequestration, genetic resources, freshwater resourcesand the aesthetic values of landscapes became the new thrill inconservationist circles. “You cannot save it if you cannot sell it”, was theslogan that lead to initiatives like “Biotrade”, an initiative established in1996 by the UN Conference on Trade and Development to promote thecreation of markets for biodiversity and its many values3.

It did not take an institution like the World Bank long to embrace thisapproach, which fitted so well within its neo-liberal ideology. As manydeveloping country governments were dependent upon the Bank forloans to finance their water purification systems and drinking waterinfrastructure, the Bank was in a unique position to “suggest”privatization in countries as varied as Uruguay and Indonesia. Othersectors struggling with bad governance were prescribed the sameremedy. As described in the above article, the World Bank demandedprivatization of Georgia’s forest resources as a central element of a

2 [georgia] protecting forests

No other country in the Caucasus is as richlyforested as Georgia. Forests are one of thecountry’s most important natural resources,covering about 40 percent of the land. TheGeorgian forests are significant for theirunique species, and the ecological, economic,recreational, land protection, and waterregulation functions of the forests are of highimportance.

Since 97% of Georgian forests are located onmountainsides, forest destruction causes hugeeconomic and environmental damage. Thenumber of environmental disasters, such asavalanches and floods, has risen in thoseregions where intensive illegal anduncontrolled felling takes place. Illegal loggingof Georgian forests has been on the rise since1991, mainly due to the country’s acute energycrisis, which has spurred people to fell trees forheating and fuel. Poachers naturally target

high quality trees, in effect stealing the bestindividuals from the forest gene pool and thusmaking proper forest regeneration all the moredifficult. It doesn’t help that timber resourcesare scarcer in neighbouring countries, makingthe relatively plentiful and lower-pricedGeorgian timber a lucrative export.

The Georgian government owns almost all ofthe country’s forests, but only allots 1 millionGeorgian Lari, or US$500,000 of its budget toforest management, a fraction of what isneeded to stop poaching and over-logging.Instead of taking concrete action to stopillegal logging, the government is proposingto privatize the forests and turn them over tocorporate hands. The decision is supported bya newly created Forest Sector DevelopmentCenter, which is World Bank-funded andsupported by the UN’s Food and AgricultureOrganization (FAO) and the InternationalMonetary Fund (IMF).

The Greens Movement of Georgia/FoE-Georgia has actively campaigned againstillegal logging and timber export. Along withother NGOs, scientists and the GeorgianOrthodox Church, they believe that this WorldBank-promoted ‘solution’ will only acceleratethe unsustainable logging of Georgia’s forests.Instead, FoE-Georgia proposes that thegovernment retains control and involves localcommunities in preserving the forests forfuture generations. They also propose re-establishing the Church’s control over foreststhat are located near important churches, apractice that has previously proven successful,and introducing modern methods ofsustainable forestry and forest management.

more information:The Greens Movement of Georgia/Friends ofthe Earth - Georgia: www.greens.ge

© f

oe g

eorg

ia

foei | 33

unproductive institutions down’, i.e. environment ministries andnational parks systems. The idea is that in exchange for the sovereigncorporate right to manage, exploit, speculate and prospect withinnatural areas, the private concerns will also take care of them. Whatthey forget is that Indigenous Peoples and other local communitieshave been taking care of these areas in a sustainable manner sincethousands of years. These same people now have to pay for access tofuel-wood, freshwater and medicinal plants, or are even blocked offentirely from any access to these basic needs.

cutting corners: privatizing the protection of biodiversity

The conservation of biodiversity is a new and burgeoning commercialsector. As governments consider the financial merits of hiving off costlypark protection responsibilities, WTO negotiators are moving in to forcethe issue by liberalising ‘protection of biodiversity and landscape’markets.

Governments are acting in the belief that they can preserve nature fornext to nothing. They argue that the private sector will provide a newsource of financing and specialist expertise. It is convenient for them tobe able to delegate immediate responsibility for costly conservationmanagement measures, especially since benefits tend to be intangibleand difficult to ascertain in the short-term.

Privatizing the management of biodiversity in this way risks subjectingcritical biodiversity resources and ecological functions to the vagaries ofmarket pressures and corporate control. It almost inevitably reduceslocal indigenous communities’ control over the biological and naturalresources upon which they depend and discourages locally-developedsustainable resource management practices. It also facilitates biopiracy.Indeed, recent experience indicates that this type of privatization isintroducing new sources of corruption and denying community rights.

The consequences of privatizing the management of biodiversity couldprevent governments from meeting their commitments under the UN’sConvention on Biological Diversity, which effectively requires them to‘regulate or manage biological resources important for the conservationof biological diversity’. In particular, the Convention specifies that thismust be done in a way that will ‘respect, preserve and maintainknowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and localcommunities’. Yet such an approach is likely to be seriouslycompromised by the current drive to privatize biodiversitymanagement.

3 [indonesia] privatization of national parks cases of biopiracy, with companies selling or

passing on traditional knowledge and geneticinformation to the pharmaceutical industry.

Members of WALHI/FoE-Indonesia areworking with affected communities to reclaimtheir rights to these resources.

komodo national park

The management of Komodo National Park,an Indonesian National park with UNESCOWorld Heritage Site and Biosphere Reservestatus, has been effectively privatised since1995. The Nature Conservancy (TNC), a US-based non-profit transnational institution,was invited to manage the park by thenational Park Authority (PHKA). Its‘collaborative management concept’ focusedon establishing eco-tourism with localcompanies in order to make the parkfinancially self-sustaining. However, localcommunities are another matter: they havebeen banned from their traditional areas asentrance to park territories requires anentrance licence and no exceptions arepermitted. The local fishing practices ofthousands have also been severely disturbed.The ecotourism company jointly-owned by

The Nature Conservancy has a 30-yearconcession from 2004, and is co-funded by theWorld Bank to the tune of US$ 5 million.

more information:Walhi/Friends of the Earth Indonesia:www.walhi.or.id

The Indonesian Government claims it cannotfinance the proper management of itsprotected areas and is privatizing parkmanagement instead. The World Bank andother international financial institutionssupport the Indonesian Government’s agendaand are helping to establish ‘public-private’partnerships. Such schemes have led to thepartial privatization of parks like Komodo,Bukit Baka Raya, Bunaken and Wakatobi.

In spite of the continuing involvement of thenational Park Authority (PHKA) the companiesexert considerable influence over the way inwhich the parks are managed. Many areecotourism companies, with an obviousinterest in promoting tourism. Typically,communities are expelled from theirtraditional territories and even those living incore and border zones may be forced to moveaway. Some become conservation refugees,moving to the cities. Losing access to traditionallands can also mean that communities areobliged to find new ways of subsisting,although some management companies doattempt to provide alternative income-generating activities. There have also been

© w

alh

i/fo

e in

don

esia

© w

alh

i/fo

e in

don

esia

34 | foei

three selling forests and parks to loggers and tourist companies

A clear example is the degradation of biological resources andecosystems in national parks. Worldwide - from the United States andSouth Africa through to China and Thailand – governments are turningto the private sector to finance nature conservation and visitor facilities,with parks being privatized, built over and developed as a result. Theconsequences for local people and the environment can be devastating.Indeed, the 2003 World Parks Congress confirmed that protected areasare threatened as never before, with damage to ecosystems - due toexcessive developments, social inequality, and commercialization - highon its list of concerns.

Civil society organizations and representatives from Indigenous Peopleswho inhabit the world’s most biodiversity-rich areas have constantlypointed out that tourism has often degraded biological resources andentire ecosystems as well as adversely affected local communities. Theyargue that tourism should not be considered as a suitable industry tohelp protect biodiversity.

There is also grave concern about the privatization and trading ofbiological resources and Indigenous Peoples’ traditional knowledge. FromVietnam and India through to the Amazon region, there are alarmingreports of “tourists” illegally collecting and trading species and traditionalmedicine recipes that may be of value for the biotechnology industry.

tourists only: the commodification and privatization of nature for tourism

Tourism, when defined broadly, to include travel services and passengertransportation, is regarded as the world’s largest and fastest growingindustry, as well as being the world’s largest service sector. In 1999 itaccounted for over 10% of world GNP, totalling US$440 billion.

Public beaches, forests and mountain areas have repeatedly been lost tothe voracious appetites of developers bent on constructing hotels,resorts, golf courses and all the varied trappings of modern,industrialized tourism. The diversion of ‘privatized’ water from publicreservoirs - to water golf course greens and fill hotel swimming poolsand bathtubs - has also become a common yet devastating practice inrecent decades.

However, it seems that worse is on the way. With the new, liberalizingspotlight fixed firmly on tourism, corporations are seeking to maximisetheir revenues by acquiring ownership of and then selling almostanything that might be of interest to a tourist – even an eco-friendly one.This new wave of privatization and management agreements encouragesgovernments to relinquish their responsibilities and many turn a blind eyeto increasing levels of exploitation and even illicit activities.

4 [malaysia] the privatization of gunung mulu national park Since opening to the public in 1985, Gunung

Mulu National Park in Sarawak has attractedvisitors from all around the world. Tourists aredrawn to the park both for its immense caves- including the world’s largest cave passage -and for its enormous richness of plants andanimals. A single hectare of the park cancontain more tree species than all of NorthAmerica, according to park statements. Butwhile tourism has brought much-appreciatedeconomic benefits, the original owners of thearea have not always shared in the rewards.Recent efforts to privatize park managementhave trampled on the few rights previouslygranted by the government to the indigenousinhabitants of the region.

Long before the tourists came, the Mulu areawas inhabited by the Berawans of LongTerawan and nomadic Penans who now live atBatu Bungan, at the fringes of the park. Whenthe park was first established the area wasmanaged by the government’s Wildlife andNational Parks Department of Sarawak. Itallowed the Indigenous Peoples certaintraditional “privileges”, such as the right tohunt for deer and wild boar, to fish, and toremove certain plant species, such as rattan,within defined areas.

After its listing as a World Heritage Site byUNESCO in 2000, the park’s management wastransferred into private hands. The beneficiarywas Borsarmulu Park Management, asubsidiary of Borsarmulu Resorts (BRSB)which also owns the nearby Royal Mulu Hoteland Resort. The company has obvious links tothe government, since the shareholders ofBRSB are the Sarawak Economic DevelopmentCorporation (SEDC) and Kenyalang Cergas, thelatter being a private company run by thebrother and sister of Sarawak’s Chief Minister.The siblings also sit on BSRB’s board ofdirectors.

Although many native Berawans appreciatethe economic benefits trickling down fromthe park’s exploitation, their rights andparticipation have often been completelydisregarded - especially when governmentand private interests have colluded for profit.

Exploitation of the park dates back to 1975,when the state government acquired a 20-acre piece of land from a native landowner.The government said the land would housethe park’s headquarters, but that buildingnever materialized. Instead, the authorityconceded the land to BRSB to build the RoyalMulu Hotel & Resort. In 1993, the company

© m

igu

el lo

vera

© m

igu

el lo

vera

foei | 35

Conspicuously, a growing number of UNESCO’s World Heritage sites arealso being privatized in order to boost visitor numbers and maintainrevenues. The famous Banaue rice terraces on Indigenous Peoples’ landin the Philippines are already beginning to crumble as a result of over-exploitation by the tourist industry. Similarly, the ecologically fragileSunderbans mangrove forests in West Bengal, India, and Bangladesh,and the Aldabra coral atoll in the Seychelles are threatened by plans formassive and inappropriate “ecotourism” developments that coulddestroy them.

In the same way, cultural heritage sites - such as the Angkor temples inCambodia, Luang Prabang in Laos and Lijiang in China’s YunnanProvince – are increasingly controlled by commercial tourism, causinghavoc to local culture and the environment. In the ancient Inca city ofMachu Picchu in Peru, one transnational corporation, Orient Express,has managed to monopolize the entire travel and tourism business,which has created anger and protests among local residents.

In fact, the indiscriminate development of tourism has become one ofthe most destructive forces in exactly those sites that UNESCO hasidentified as requiring protection and restoration. Nevertheless, the UNagency has itself become a significant promoter of tourism, forgingrelationships with corporate sponsors and arguing that tourism “brings

much-needed funds, which can be used to help preserve natural andcultural World Heritage sites and empower local communities livingand working near those sites”. UNESCO has even begun to collaboratewith industry partners in marketing heritage sites as touristdestinations. In March 2004, UNESCO hosted its first ever stand at theInternational Tourism Exchange (ITB), the world’s largest tourism fair.

Common sense tells us that the world’s last pristine habitats, importantcultural and religious sites and Indigenous Peoples’ ancestral domainsshould be protected from commercial tourism and properly maintainedfor the public good, now and in the future. However, under newliberalization schemes - such as the World Trade Organization’s (WTO)General Agreement of Trade in Services (GATS) - there are good reasonsto worry that such protection – as well as support for local tourismoperators - is about to be outlawed. GATS could prevent the adoption ofa huge range of measures designed to protect the environment fromtourism, including, for example, restrictions on the development oftourist resorts or constraints on the numbers of tourists visiting fragilecoral reefs.

was granted another 243 acres of provisionallease for the second phase of the resort andother developments. However, by that time anumber of Berawan families had claimed theland and some had already built small touristlodgings. The result has been a bitter disputebetween the Berawans and the authorities,with the state refusing to negotiate. Instead,the government has openly criticized theBerawans, characterizing them as greedy andalleging they cannot prove their claims.During the 1990s, the Berawans stagedpeaceful protests, which the authoritiesquelled with police force and threats.

The struggle goes on today, with thegovernment determined to make MuluNational Park a major tourist destination. TheBerawans are claiming that land thegovernment has allotted for an extension ofthe Mulu airport belongs to them. Despiteattempts to have the land properly surveyedand deeded, the government has so farrefused to entertain the claims and the nativelandowners have hired a lawyer and called forarbitration. The case is still pending.

The government has also failed to allow theBerawans to adequately participate indecision-making regarding the control,regulation, management and implementationof the development activities near the park,even when such activities directly impactthem. They have been shut out of manyeconomic and business opportunities arisingfrom tourism development in the area, andthey participate mainly as workers.

For more than a decade, the Berawans havedemanded that the government

• recognize their land rights;

• demarcate their lands and issue titles to alllandowners in the Melinau area;

• ensure the participation of the Berawanpeople in decision-making to control andmanage the development near the MuluNational Park; and

• ensure a fair share in the rewards of tourismdevelopment and allow them to controldevelopment that impacts their culturalheritage.

more information:Sahabat Alam Malaysia/Friends of the EarthMalaysia: www.foe-malaysia.org

© m

igu

el lo

vera

© m

igu

el lo

vera

36 | foei

three selling forests and parks to loggers and tourist companies

ensure that developing country debts are repaid, included tourism aspart of its Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs). In essence, thismeans that any country requiring financial assistance was andcontinues to be pressurized to ensure that tourism is integrated into itseconomy, through liberalization and deregulation. As a result, publicand private investments worldwide have now reached $800 billionannually, accounting for 12% of total investments across the globe.

And then, handing over parks to tourist companies is not even the mostdevastating form of nature privatization. There is also an increasingtendency to hand over protected areas to oil and mining companies.With governments declaring themselves broke, selling of the familyjewels to anyone who is willing to pay for them is the most pragmaticmanner to fix budget deficits. So who objects if an oil or miningcompany is willing to “manage” a park?

While both national legislation and international instruments (such asthe Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)) are firmly in favour ofdecentralized tourism planning, the GATS works in the oppositedirection, centralizing decision-making and, according to the India-based NGO Equations, creating “a predictable harmonized deregulatoryclimate for service providers [that] places no value on local democracy”.Yet the United Nations seems to be blind to these developments andhas so far singularly failed to deal with the potential impacts that thecommodification and privatization of nature for tourism might have onbiodiversity. The deliberations of the Commission on SustainableDevelopment (CSD), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), andthe events in relation to the International Year of Ecotourism (IYE) 2002can all be considered failures in this respect.

This might be due to the fervour with which the development oftourism is being pursued in other fora. According to Raymond Chavez4”…cash-starved Third World countries view tourism as a shortcut to rapiddevelopment. Its potential to earn billions of dollars easily has resultedin it being viewed as a panacea for debt-ridden countries. But more thanthis, tourism has become part and parcel of multilateral financialinstitutions’ package for financial bail-outs for countries indistress...”Thus the International Monetary Fund (IMF), anxious to

1 |

2 |

3 |

4 |

See for example “The Flawed Wisdom of Sustainable Forest Management”,

http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/docs/_ref/publications/newsonline/32/wisdom.htm

See report on the Global Initiative to Address the Underlying Causes of Deforestation and Forest Degradation:

http://www.wrm.org.uy/deforestation/uc-rpt_eng.pdf

See http://www.biotrade.org

Chavez, Raymond, ‘Globalization and tourism: Deadly mix for indigenous peoples’, Tebtebba Foundation, Philippines, Third World

Resurgence No. 103, March 1999

5 [swaziland] biodiversity privatization and human rights abuses In 1991 Swaziland passed the Game Act to

curb rampant poaching. Swaziland alsosigned and ratified the Convention onInternational Trade of Endangered Species(CITES). In 1998, the administration of theGame Act and CITES were moved from theMinistry to the Kings Office. BGP isresponsible for these two instruments onbehalf of the King and is the managementand scientific authority for CITES.

cites privatized

Despite the obvious potential for a conflict ofinterest, BGP, a major player in the for-profitwildlife industry, was entrusted with theadministration of an international agreement,to which Swaziland is a party. The currentarrangement means that the country’swildlife management and the scientificauthority responsible for CITES are housedwithin the same entity. This situation is totallyinadequate to ensure accountability andtransparency, which can only be achievedthrough the segregation of responsibilities.

Since BGP is not obliged to report or consultwith anyone, Swaziland’s compliance withCITES is very difficult to monitor. The dangersof this arrangement were illustrated in 2002

Swaziland is a landlocked kingdom insouthern Africa, lying between South Africaand Mozambique. It is formally governed by aMonarch, a legislature and a judiciary, but asof 1973, the King has all executive, legislativeand judicial powers vested in him.

Protected areas make up four percent of theland. National parks are managed by theSwaziland National Trust Commission, aparastatal entity created by statute in 1972.Private companies also have a stake in parkmanagement with Big Game Parks (BGP) as amajor commercial player.

BGP owns and manages Mlilwane WildlifeSanctuary and Mkhaya Nature Reserve. It alsomanages Hlane National Park, one of thecountry’s largest. This park is owned by theSwazi nation and draws finances from thenational treasury, but BGP claims it submitsits reports directly to the king. The allegedinvolvement of the king means themanagement of these funds and theperformance of the park cannot be debated byparliament, unlike all other nationalexpenditures.

foei | 37

more information:Tourists only: the commodification and privatization of nature fortourism is based on the paper “OUR WORLD IS NOT FOR SALE ! Thedisturbing implications of privatization in the tourism trade” by AnitaPleumarom, Tourism Investigation & Monitoring Team (tim-team). Paperpresented at the International Seminar on Tourism: Unfair Practices -Equitable Options, 8th - 9th December 2003, Hannover, Germany,hosted by DANTE/ The Network for Sustainable Tourism Development:www.twnside.org.sg/tour.htm

when BGP exported eleven elephants to a zooin the USA under the pretext of relievingoverpopulation. This was done within theambit of CITES, and BGP itself was able toboth propose the export and also approve it asscientifically sound.

For the CITES COP 13 in 2004, Swazilandsuccessfully proposed to down-list its sixty-one white rhinos so that they could becomesubject to trophy hunting and export tounnamed destinations. The proposal was onceagain underwritten by BGP, which did notconsult with other stakeholders. It appears tobe strictly a business decision in BGP’sfinancial interest.

ungamely act

The Game Act provides wide-ranging powersto game rangers in protecting wildlife, such asthe use of force in the execution of theirduties with guaranteed immunity fromprosecution. In a murky turn of events, in 1997the owner of BGP, his son and daughter andfive other BGP employees were appointedrangers, retroactively to 1991. Theappointment came conveniently in the wakeof a pending criminal prosecution of theowner and his BGP rangers for the murder of a

man and his brother-in-law in 1992.Immediately after the announcement of theappointments, the prosecution was dropped.

The BGP has used its immunity and the king’sname to terrorise local communities andintimidate government officers who dared tointervene in their dealings. People have beenkilled and crippled, yet the perpetrators arenot prosecuted. Other farm owners havejoined in and are maiming and killingcommunity members. Communities aresubjected to inhumane acts and torturereminiscent to those of the apartheid regimein neighbouring South Africa.

Yonge Nawe, a public interest environmentalNGO in Swaziland has been trying to highlightthe situation and is advocating the de-privatization of CITES in Swaziland or thesuspension of Swaziland from the convention.This entails the removal of private corporationsand placing the administration of wildlife andbiodiversity laws in the responsiblegovernment ministries. Yonge Nawe is alsoworking on accessing justice and redress forvictims of human rights abuses at the hands ofpark and farm owners and bringing theperpetrators to book. Finally, it is campaigningon ensuring community rights to access,

ownership and management of naturalresources and biodiversity in Swaziland.

more information:Yonge Nawe: www.yongenawe.com

© y

onge

naw

e ©

yon

ge n

awe

© y

onge

naw

e

38 | foei

6 [usa] the disneyfication of its parks In the US, government agencies concernedwith conservation - including the ForestService, the Natural Resources ConservationService, and the National Park Service - havesigned a Memorandum of Understandingwith the Walt Disney Company oncooperation in land and natural resourcemanagement and environmental education.Following this example, many pristine naturalareas are being transformed into money-spinning theme parks. Private security guards,fee collectors and the logos of Coca Cola,McDonald and KFC have come to dominatethe landscape.

more information:Third World Network tourism pages:www.twnside.org.sg/tour.htm

North America originally served as a model forestablishing countries’ national park systems,even though there was often a high cost tolocal and indigenous communities, who faceddispossession and displacement asauthorities and conservationists stepped in toprotect forests and wildlife. It seems that thispattern is now being repeated as land andnatural resource managers worldwide arecopying the American model again, this timein terms of privatization and “Disneyfication”.

7 [malta] golf course defeated In a major victory for the environment, aproposal to have a golf course in the centre ofMalta was rejected unanimously by the boardresponsible for planning. The proposal wouldhave meant the privatization of landsupporting local nature and agriculture.

The golf course, planned by the company AXHoldings, would have consumed a largeamount of water, a scarce resource in Maltawhere already 50% of water comes fromdesalination plants. A golf course would alsohave been a poor choice of use for a piece ofland which provides work for 150 farmers.Malta already suffers from a shortage ofagricultural land, with only 20-30% of localfood requirements provided locally. Inaddition, golf courses don’t fare well in theMediterranean climate and are usually ruinedafter 8 years because of the excessive use ofpesticides and water required to keep themgreen. Moreover, to grow the turf on thecourse, other native organisms would beobliterated. The area is also host to protectedfauna as well as organic farming, with moreagricultural projects in the pipeline.

A broad coalition of environmental and naturegroups, including Friends of the Earth Malta,farmers and agriculture organisations wereamong the many different groups whosuccessfully opposed the scheme.

more information:Friends of the Earth Malta: www.foemalta.org

© f

oe m

alta

© f

oe m

alta

foei | 39

part four | the new markets 1: selling our carbon

© t

obia

s

40 | foei

the carbon market:“nature on sale” allover again

four the new market: selling our carbon

Nature, food, land, forests, water, biodiversity, and genes are not anymore “natural” than they are “human”. To try to make any of them intoa commodity is to reorganize society. It is to create new kinds of powerand knowledge and put them in fewer and different hands.

Putting “nature” on sale is a complicated game. Commodificationrequires police. It requires fences, accountants and patents. It requiresnew laws and lots of lawyers. It requires schools and public relations. Itrequires new state institutions and new techniques. It requiressubsidies. No market has ever been created or sustained without a lotof hard work by institutions, which economists have wrongly taught usto believe are “outside” the market.

Nowhere does “putting nature on sale” cause such complications as inthe case of climate. Here, as with biodiversity, an emergingenvironmental disaster has led to new attempts to commodify thatenvironment. Business, the state and a lot of expert institutions areinstinctively trying to evade a crisis they have helped create using thetools that created it. But in the climate case this approach is, if anything,even more pathological, stupid, and damaging.

1 [costa rica] markets of environmental services and the privatization of resources

During the 70’s, 80’s and the beginning of the90’s, forests suffered severe deforestation inCosta Rica. Considering that most of the countryis privately owned, the government took actionand developed initiatives aimed at stimulatingthe recovery of forests on private lands.

In 1996, The Forest Law 7575 renewed thebasic concept upon which private forests weremanaged. The original scheme of forestincentives was transformed into the Paymentsfor Environmental Services (PSA) systemmeaning that environmental servicesprovided by forests and plantations were paidfor. The state recognized environmentalservices as the conservation of biodiversity,water basins and water resources, theprovision of aesthetical values and the abilityof a forest to function as a carbon sink. ThePSA was a simple way of making forests inprivately owned hands pay for themselves andattribute the costs to the whole society. Todevelop and administer the PSA system, theNational Fund for Forest Financing(FONAFIFO) was created. On average, CostaRica has been allocating about $7-8 millionper year to payments for environmentalservices paid for by a selective tax on fuel.

The PSA system was developed as a political,technical and financing tool used to plan andfund the conservation of vital resources inprivate areas. However, since the verybeginning, the PSA system has been subject toideological pressures that try to drive ittowards a much more mercantilist stance,oriented by the illusion of markets andprivatization of environmental services.

achievements, potentials and limitations

FONAFIFO, together with the forest andlumber industry, state that the PSA systemhas to be given credit for the regeneration ofthe forest cover in the country, which hasbenefited both the forest industry and peoplein rural areas through employment. However,a study carried out by FONAFIFO in 2002,concluded that PSA had no effect as a povertyreduction strategy in rural areas of thecountry. To add to this, in 2003 the Institute forEconomic Research in the University of CostaRica, published a report stating that the PSAsystem had no real impact on theimprovement of environmental services beingpaid for, it was concentrated in few

foei | 41

climate and carbon

The climate change crisis is an example of a familiar social problem –the overflowing waste dump. For over 150 years, industrial societieshave been transferring fossil carbon from underground deposits of coal,oil and gas, via the combustion chamber, to a more active and rapidlycirculating carbon pool, or “dump”, above ground.

Once carbon is in the aboveground system, you can’t get it backunderground into fossil fuel or carbonate deposits for a very long time.The capacity of the aboveground “dump” as a whole to absorb carbonfrom underground is limited and perhaps half of the fossil carboncontinually being added to the aboveground pool of carbon is buildingup in the atmosphere. The consequence is global warming and risingsea levels, with potentially disastrous results for our planet.

Industrialized societies alone currently use far more of the absorptivecapacity of the biosphere and atmosphere in which to stow their carbonemissions than is globally “available”. Were the global North’s use ofaboveground carbon “dump” space to be held constant, no space wouldbe left for others to use, even for activities which do not involve transferof carbon from fossil stocks (such as breathing).

The thinking person’s solution to this problem is to slow or halt theproduction of the substance that winds up in the dump. Reduce thedangers of dumped DDT or chlorofluorocarbons or polyvinyl chloride?Stop producing them. Reduce the dangers of climate change? Stoptaking fossil fuels out of the ground.

Yet the elites most dependent on hydrocarbons don’t see things thatway. They are not inclined to stop producing the stuff filling up thedumps or to take up new technologies which could invade their currentcore markets. Instead of restricting and equalizing the use of theaboveground carbon dump, world elites, particularly in the North, havebeen working, since the 1990s, to turn it into a privately owned asset.Bit by bit, starting with voluntary carbon markets and the KyotoProtocol, international climate agreements have become a charter forcommodification. The carbon-absorbing capacity of the world’s air,oceans, soil and vegetation is being put on sale.

landowners’ hands, and it didn’t contribute toeradicating rural poverty.

In spite of this, environmental organizationsrecognize its potential as a tool that can channelresources to forest owners. Positive experienceswith peasant and Indigenous Peoplesorganizations in the management of PSAresources, have developed new practices andknowledge on community forest managementand the restoration of tropical forests. Further workis being carried out to turn PSA into a resource thatmotivates and facilitates greater appropriation andcontrol of forest resources by local communities,and into a tool for forest restoration in areas wherebio-diversity is degraded.

commodification vs. honest strengthening of PSA

Regardless of the positive experiences andfuture potential, the PSA system is presently at acrossroads. Either it establishes and strengthensitself as an honest tool to protect forests andtheir biodiversity, to maintain and improve thecondition of water basins, and to strengthenlocal organizations, their knowledge andmanagement capacities of forest resources. Or,it becomes commodified and remains limited tothe logic of the market, handing over control ofvital resources to big corporations.

Some political sectors at the national andinternational level are strongly pushing for thelatter. An example of this is the Eco-marketsproject, a fundraising initiative for the PSAsystem, implemented by the Costa Ricangovernment and financed in 2001 with aWorld Bank loan and a donation from theGlobal Environment Facility (GEF). The projectclearly focused on “supporting thedevelopment of markets and private suppliersof the environmental services offered byprivate forests”. Its main goal has been to sellenvironmental services related to themaintenance of biodiversity, the reduction ofgreenhouse gases and water conservation inthe global market.

The drive to create new markets forbiodiversity related services, carbon creditsand water, poses several important questions.For example, who is going to buy theseservices and what are the rights they acquireover national biodiversity, forest and waterresources? Moreover, how will nationalsovereignty over biodiversity interface withthis new market? In answering thesequestions it must be recognized, that it is fullylegitimate for a country to take responsibilityfor the costs of protecting and maintaining itsown natural resources, for the purposes of

food security, healthcare and its ethicalrelation with biodiversity.

carbonization?

Tropical countries not obliged to reduceemissions under the Kyoto Protocol had theirexpectations raised with the introduction ofthe Clean Development Mechanism and thecarbon credit market. It gave them the chanceto attract investments and funds, through theestablishment of reforestation andforestation projects, which would act ascarbon sinks.

Costa Rica, with quite some technicalexperience in financing and management ofplantations, has been in the vanguard of thisgroup of countries and has been preparing tohost these kinds of projects. This is despite thefact that plantations damage the veryenvironmental services for which they getpaid, such as the protection of soil and wateras well as the conservation of biodiversity.

In spite of Costa Rica’s forest experience, thedefinition of a Kyoto area remains unresolvedand the determination of their potential forcarbon fixation still presents difficulties. Moreimportantly, the development of these carbon

42 | foei

four the new market: selling our carbon

awarded to Northern industry become scarcer and more expensive overtime, those sectors most in need of them will be able to buy an alternative,cut-rate supply from a new production line. Among those active in tryingto create this market in new dumps, are oil companies, heavy industries,national research establishments, universities, think tanks, carbon brokers,consultancies, forestry industries, United Nations agencies, the WorldBank, marketing firms and international business lobby groups.

One new type of carbon dump is to be carved out of land, forests, soils,water and even parts of the oceans. Fast-growing eucalyptus monocultures,for example, may be established or financed on cheap land in the South andthe carbon they “sequester”then sold. The idea is that these trees are “new”and thus make up for the fossil carbon, which continues to be pumped outof the ground. Many such “carbon sink”projects have already been set up incountries ranging from Brazil and Uganda to India and the UK.

There are, of course, a few problems with this project of constructingnew carbon dumps in the biosphere. First, in addition to licensingcontinued overuse and unequal use of the existing carbon dump, theattempt to build new biospheric dumps inevitably means taking over orusing people’s land, water, forests, air and communities. The result is,inevitably, local resistance as has already been experienced in manycountries, in both rich and poor areas of the world.

property giveaways

The Kyoto Protocol currently represents the main thrust ofcommodification of the world’s carbon-cycling capacity and is divided intotwo parts. Under the first part, the United Nations would distributebillions of dollars’worth of rights to (over)use existing carbon dumps to 38industrialized nations who already use them the most, permitting them tosell portions of what they don’t use. The Protocol is intended to bind thesecountries to reducing their emissions by an average of about five per centbelow 1990 levels by 2008-2012, although due to various loopholes thesereductions will not be achieved even if the Protocol is implemented asplanned. The governments of most of the 38 nations (although not that ofthe US), in turn, are quietly distributing large quantities of theirentitlements to dump space gratis to hundreds of private companies inheavy industrial sectors such as power generation, steel, cement,chemicals and pulp and paper. Ultimately, the distribution of carbonallowances constitutes one of the largest, if not the largest, projects forcreation and regressive distribution of property rights in human history.

The second part of the Kyoto Protocol attempts to open up, create propertyrights in, and market new, speculative, cheaper types of carbon dump. Theaim is to help industrialized countries avoid restrictions on, ordemocratization of, their use of existing dumps. As carbon allowances

markets raises serious ethical questions.According to recent estimates of theInternational Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),far greater reductions in the emission ofgreenhouse gases are needed than thoseestablished under the Kyoto Protocol if wewant to have a significant impact on themitigation of global warming in the coming100 years. Furthermore, the CDM has not onlydemonstrated the uncertainty of its realeffectiveness in reducing emissions and onclimate change, but it has also turned out tobe a very complex mechanism, the discussionof which, has delayed the negotiations of theKyoto Protocol.

In the case of Costa Rica, it has been estimatedthat these mechanisms could generateenough funds to double the area ofplantations. Even worse, models for carbonreduction through CDM projects haveindicated that they are only cost effectivewhen the projects involve thousands ofhectares. For Costa Rica, where the averagefarm size is about 60 hectares per family, thisimplies a serious threat of land concentrationin a few hands.

certificates for environmental services

FONAFIFO has been trying to promote thenational and international market forenvironmental services through theCertificates for Environmental Services (CSA)scheme. Through CSAs the generation of basicenvironmental services is ensured for thefunctioning of a company. Moreover, a CSAcan be used to provide the company with agood image, given that it is cooperating withthe protection of forests; and the investmentcan be deducted from gross income for taxpurposes by presenting it as operational costs.

For example, a CSA can be obtained by acompany, which wants to protect a forestlinked to a specific water basin where theyhave interests. A case in point is the certificatethat has been issued to Meliá Conchal Hotel inthe Dry Pacific, a region in the northeast,where water has been a limitation for largeagricultural and tourism projects.

The company has been in conflict with thelocal communities who regard the huge waterdemands of the hotel as a threat to theiraquifers. The company’s strategy has been tobuy land in water replenishment areas. Theseareas are submitted to PSA programs that willbe financed with the funds coming from theCSA, which the company has bought.

This example illustrates how this new marketfor environmental services presents the risk oftransforming the PSA system into aninstrument of control over vital resources in thehands of big corporations. It also implies therisk of shifting the focus, goals and plans of thePSA system from one of conservation of naturalresources, to one that only deals with theinterests of those that are profiting from thoseresources and have the funds to buy them.

foei | 43

dumping science

A second difficulty with the attempt to build new carbon dumps in thebiosphere is that they can’t be verified to be working. For one thing,scientists are radically uncertain about the fate of carbon dumped in thebiosphere. In fact, scientists can’t even know in advance all the factorsrelated to biotic carbon that will affect climate, and all the nonlinear ordiscontinuous ways they may interact, making the problem even worsethan mere uncertainty. The paths carbon takes above ground are notonly much less stable but also, more importantly, much less predictable,than the paths taken by fossil carbon left under the ground.

Moreover, no matter how much additional biospheric carbon could becultivated, it could never be of an order of magnitude remotely comparableto what would be required to “fix”the emissions from remaining unminedfossil fuels. As the Cambridge University forest historian Oliver Rackhamquips, to tell people to plant trees to help the climate is “like telling themto drink more water to keep down rising sea-levels.”

In short, a verifiable climatic equivalence between fossil carbon andbiotic carbon cannot be established, rendering the claims of the KyotoProtocol and firms such as Future Forests nonsense. Planting treescannot be proved to make fossil fuel burning “carbon-neutral”.

away from the market

An important part of the formulation of the Kyoto Protocol has been the marketbias of many of the other actors who are attempting to turn the world’s carbon-cycling capacity into a commodity: international financial institutions,consultants, lawyers, traders, technocrats and some large NGOs. Many suchtechnically sophisticated people are unlikely even to consider more constructiveand democratic approaches unless public pressure on them increases.

constructive ways forward:

1. Encourage discussion and negotiation about all the different possibleways of dividing up existing carbon dump space equally, including onesthat do not involve tradable private property.

2. Work towards keeping remaining fossil fuels in the ground, for example by

• Supporting and linking existing movements, setting their local areasoff limits to mining, drilling, power production, etc.

• Supporting energy efficiency, renewables, non-fossil-fuelledtechnologies and responsible tree-planting, but without trading themfor continued fossil fuel extraction.

• Regulation, taxation and other measures that do not start with anassumption that corporations already own the world’s carbon-cycling capacity.

conclusion

The mercantilist orientation that some sectorswant to give the PSA system are not onlythreatening its ethical integrity, given that theymix it up with the marketing of carbon creditsand the accompanying threat of monoculturetree plantations, but they are threatening toturn the PSA system into a control tool and ameans by which corporations can appropriatenatural resources. These threats are magnifiedeven more with the proposals in the free tradeagreement with the US, which will facilitate theopening up of environmental services markets.

Friends of the Earth Costa Rica will continuecampaigning for the PSA system to evolveincreasingly towards an environmentally healthyand socially just system; so that it can becomeindependent from the old incentive schemes formono-culture plantations; so that it can bestrengthened as a tool in the struggle againstrural poverty and avoid the concentration ofresources in the hands of big land owners; so thatlocal peasant and indigenous organizations getsupport to deal with the bureaucraticrequirements, and so that it can begin tocomplement processes of capacity building andparticipatory research on forests and its resources.The PSA system must not be transformed into thewaiting room for the privatization of resources.

more information:Coecoceiba Friends of the Earth Costa Ricaemail: coecoat@sol.racsa.co.cr

© c

oeco

ceib

a fr

ien

ds

of t

he

eart

h c

osta

ric

a©

coe

coce

iba

© c

oeco

ceib

a

44 | foei

four the new market: selling our carbon

That will require ensuring that the politics of climate – like the politicsof biodiversity, water, genes, ideas, food, health and land – is notconfined to back rooms occupied by politicians and experts but isbrought into the light of day. In a recent book on intellectual property,Australian scholars Peter Drahos and John Braithwaite point out that:

“Lobbying in relation to property rights should take place underconditions of democratic bargaining. Democratic bargaining matterscrucially to the definition of property rights because of theconsequences of property rules for all individuals within a society.Property rights confer authority over resources. When authority isgranted to the few over resources on which the many depend, the fewgain power over the goals of the many.”

more information:Sinks Watch: www.sinkswatch.orgCarbon Trade Watch: www.tni.org/ctwCDM Watch: www.cdmwatch.orgThe Cornerhouse: www.thecornerhouse.org.uk

2 [brazil] plantar – privatizing theclimate and land for profit

The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) isone of the carbon reduction strategiesdeveloped under the Kyoto Protocol. A CDMproject is intended to be a sustainabledevelopment project that theoreticallyreduces or offsets global emissions in carbondioxide (CO2). The institution implementing aCDM project will, as part of the Protocol, gaincarbon credits that they can sell to pollutingindustries or countries, usually based in theNorth, who have agreed to undertake areduction in their emissions. CDM projectsinclude methane extraction from landfills,hydro-electric dam projects, mono-culturetree plantations and projects that switch fueluse away from carbon based fuels, such ascoal or oil to alternative sources.

Brazil has been targeted as a country withgreat potential for growth in CDM projectswith several already in development. Oneexample of a CDM in the Minas Gerais regionis a controversial project supported under theauspices of the World Bank’s Prototype CarbonFund (PCF). A corporation called Plantar S.A. isclaiming carbon credits for not switching itspig iron operations from charcoal to coal. Inaddition to this ‘avoided fuel-switch’component, the Plantar project also claimscredits for the carbon that will be temporarilytaken up by its 23 100ha of monocultureeucalyptus plantations, acting as sinks thatabsorb carbon from the atmosphere. Theeucalyptus is burnt to produce the charcoalthat smelts the iron, but currently only around50% of the charcoal comes from Plantar’s ownplantation and a large amount of theremainder is purchased from native sources.This has increased pressure on native forests,where due to significant demand from the pigiron industry, harvest is rarely sustainable, andin many cases illegal.

The World Bank has decided to supportPlantar despite the fact that scientific studiesconcerning the ability of monoculture treeplantations to sequester CO2 remaininconclusive. Some studies show that such

plantations actually produce more CO2emissions than they take up, while others saythat only established forest ecosystems suchas rainforests are able to absorb and storecarbon. Moreover, carbon is actually notstored in plantations, and in the case of Brazil,eucalyptus is harvested in 7 year cycles andwhen burnt releases the CO2 back into theatmosphere, something not taken intoaccount in projects such as Plantar.Additionally, during planting, soil is tilled,releasing CO2. Compounding the problem,more often than not plantations displacenative forests, disrupting local ecosystemsand degrading biodiversity.

In the case of Plantar, there was more at stakethan a company profiting from climate changeby planting a self-destructive green desert ofeucalyptus trees. In March 2003 a group of over50 trade unions, churches, local deputies,academics, human and land rights organizationsand others protested against Plantar.

Plantar S.A. installed themselves in MinasGerais in the 1960s and 1970s during themilitary dictatorship, taking advantage ofattractive tax incentives at the time. Mostlands owned by Plantar and othercorporations that moved into the area, aredevolutas, which means without land titles,

© t

obia

s

© ju

tta

© t

obia

s

foei | 45

As the Cambridge University forest historian Oliver Rackham quips, to tell people to plant trees to help the climate is

“like telling them to drink more water to keep down rising sea-levels.”

Australian scholars Peter Drahos and John Braithwaite point out that:

“Lobbying in relation to property rights should take place under conditions of democratic

bargaining. Democratic bargaining matters crucially to the definition of property rights because of

the consequences of property rules for all individuals within a society. Property rights confer

authority over resources. When authority is granted to the few over resources on which the many

depend, the few gain power over the goals of the many.”

and belong to the state. According to Brazilianlaw, corporations cannot acquire this type ofland, only peasants. Even so, with fraudulentregistrations in the registry offices and“hiring” contracts with the state, Plantarsucceeded in acquiring hundreds ofthousands of hectares of devolutas lands.

Local communities were never consulted, andIndigenous peoples and Afro-BrazilianQuilombala communities and thousands ofpeasants lost their lands, specifically theimmensely biodiverse native savannah, thecerrado, which together with subsistenceagriculture had provided for all of their needs.The short cycle plantations that replaced thenatural environment did not allow for thesurvival of indigenous plants, animals andbirds, which in turn affected local foodmarkets that had previously depended on thenatural products provided by the cerrado. Thepig iron companies still use around 15-20 percent of native cerrado vegetation.

Not only did Plantar cut down large areas of theforest and create unemployment in theprocess, but also the oil smelting industry andeucalyptus plantations did not replace thesejobs sufficiently. However, with no other choicemany people were forced to work for theseindustries. Plantar does not do anything for its

former workers, many of whom are injured orsuffering from health problems. Moreover,many have already died as a result of the verybad working conditions associated withcharcoal production and eucalyptus cultivation.

Local groups have been working to regain landand compensation from Plantar. However,threats and intimidation tactics from Plantarhave made many local residents afraid to letinterviewers cite their names and areacknowledged nowhere in project documents.Under the PCF project, Plantar’s already vastland holdings in Minas Gerais will expand byan additional 23 000 ha, further increasingunequal land distribution.

The local movement appealed to thePrototype Carbon Fund with no success, and isnow appealing directly to European investorsnot to put money into the carbon project.

Despite the ecological destruction and socialsuffering caused by Plantar it has succeeded ingaining a sustainable forestry certificatethrough the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC).However, a 2003 report by the World RainforestMovement, documented a multitude ofshortcomings and omissions of the FSCcertification assessment by the certifying bodyScientific Certification Services (SCS), who

issued the certificate. In the case of Plantar itseems that the FSC prefers supportingindustrial plantations instead of ecologicallybased initiatives by local communities.

In summary, the case of Plantar and thesupport of the World Bank PCF is a starkreminder of the direction our planet isheading. The privatization of lands formonoculture plantations aimed at reducingthe pollution caused by the industrial north isnot a remedy for climate change. In fact it isonly making it worse, while in the processexcluding the poorest and destroying whatremaining biodiversity we have.

more information:Carbon Trade Watch: www.carbontradewatch.orgCDM Watch: www.cdmwatch.orgFASE (Federation of Organizations for Socialand Educational Assistance): www.fase.com.brWorld Rainforest Movement: www.wrm.org.uyLandless Workers Movement/Movimento Sem Terra: www.mst.org.br

© ju

tta

46 | foei

carbon sinks orsinking climate

four the new market: selling our carbon

Carbon sinks is a new and confusing issue to many people. Carbondioxide is in the air, and carbon is stored in nearly all objects around us,but we cannot see it. Nevertheless, at climate talks negotiators andscientists have re-invented carbon as a new and invisible commodity, tobe traded through the establishment of carbon projects such asplantations. An increasing number of these projects are beingimplemented in different countries despite the Kyoto Protocol not beingin force yet. Unless something is done about it, we will be facing scoresof plantation projects in the South aimed at “sequestering” carbon fromthe atmosphere.

Negotiators at the Kyoto Protocol have created something called theClean Development Mechanism (CDM). This mechanism allows for treeplantations to act as so-called “carbon sinks” which allegedly absorbCO2 emissions, and store carbon in the wood biomass, whilesimultaneously releasing oxygen. Unfortunately the mechanism inquestion has little to do with clean development. Its worst aspect is thepromotion of large-scale tree plantations, and the explicit inclusion ofplantations of genetically engineered trees.

An example is the Forests Absorbing Carbon Dioxide (FACE) foundation;an initiative created by a consortium of Dutch electricity utilities.Theaim of FACE is to plant trees in Uganda and in the Ecuadorian Andes in

3 [paraguay] life as commerce? mbaracayú: land of the aché miguel lovera, coordinator, global forest coalition

The Aché people have lived in Paraguay’ssubtropical forests for centuries, survivingseveral violent intrusions into their territories,even the Bandeirantes, or manhunters of theeighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and theJesuit missionaries and their infamous“reductions”. The Aché were perfectly adapted tothe forest and as long as it survived, so did they.

Since 1945, however, more than 8 millionhectares of subtropical humid forests havebeen cleared in eastern Paraguay – the core ofthe Aché’s ancestral territory – to make way forcattle ranches and mechanized agriculture.Aché communities that survived 467 years ofexploitation and colonization were suddenlydevastated. Today, the last of the Achécommunities are now threatened, ironically, bya nature conservation organization.

In 1988, a soon-to-go-bankrupt plywood millwrapped up operations in the MbaracayúForest Nature Reserve area, home to the last ofthe Aché communities. The main creditor ofthe botched company was the World Bank’sInternational Financial Corporation (IFC),which took the property as collateral and thensold it to the US-based The NatureConservancy (TNC) for $2 million.

© m

igu

el lo

vera

© m

igu

el lo

vera

foei | 47

order to absorb the CO2 which they emit in the Netherlands. It maysound like an improbable idea, but some 50 000 hectares of trees havealready been planted in these two countries. Moreover, in their glossybrochures, the project is presented as a great success: indigenouscommunities are happily planting pine trees; they are reforesting theirdegraded environment and have even been certified by the ForestStewardship Council (FSC).

However, research carried out on these plantations in Ecuador, showedlittle in common with the brochures. This was not a degradedenvironment but a “paramo” ecosystem, consisting of grasslands 3000meters above sea level, which had never been a forest. One of theplantations was a total disaster. The alien pine trees from Mexico werevery weak and yellow in colour. Growth was extremely slow, andanimals had eaten most of the trees’ main shoots. Besides this, localpeople were unhappy with the whole project.

To make matters worse, half of the plantation had been burnt, resultingin the release of CO2 back into the atmosphere. This is not anuncommon event for tree plantations, which are highly prone to fires.More importantly, it highlights how volatile this kind of carbon storageis, and the unreliability of the system.

Monoculture tree plantations appropriate large areas of land and in theprocess are often a direct and indirect cause of deforestation. Theydeplete water resources and destroy biodiversity. What’s more, casestudies show that local communities become impoverished whenplantations replace the natural resources they depend on for theirlivelihoods.

It is thus obvious that large-scale tree plantations are a bad idea. In spiteof this, climate negotiators are promoting them as a “solution” toclimate change. Perversely, countries that are already implementingCDM projects are usually portrayed as the “good” guys in climatenegotiations, such as the Netherlands, Spain, and Norway. The fact thatthe Forest Stewardship Council is certifying plantations has onlyenhanced the status of CDM-related plantations as a ‘sustainable’solution.

Regardless of the facts, governments in the South are continuing tomake agreements with their polluting Northern counterparts. Recently,the Uruguayan and Spanish governments agreed to plant 30 000hectares of eucalyptus per year to absorb Spanish companies’emissions. In total some 150 000 hectares of “carbon sinks” are plannedin Uruguay, just for emissions from Spanish companies.

To protect this last tract of closed-canopy forest,the powerful conservation organization createdthe Mbaracayú Forest Nature Reserve. In theprocess, it shoved the Aché off to the side insettlements and gave them only limited rights tothe land. There, the Aché have been exposed toaggressive evangelization and live as foreignersand paupers next to the land that sustained themfor centuries. Meanwhile, the nature conservationorganizations behind the reserve grow richer fromboth corporate and public grants.

the role of international financial institutions

From the outset, the World Bank’s IFC workedhand in hand with TNC, putting the rights of theAché second to land conservation. It devaluedthe land from $7 million to a more affordable $2million, responding most likely to TNC’s lobbyingof World Bank directors and the intervention ofhigh-ranking US officials. In 2002, the GlobalEnvironment Facility (GEF) granted $998 513 forbiodiversity conservation to Fundación MoisesBertoni (FMB), the private foundation runningthe reserve that was set up with support fromTNC. The Inter American Development Bankcontributed around $580 000 to develop anagro-industrial complex in the area, designed topurchase and process regional produce at pricesconvenient for the producers.

Aché leaders, who prefer to remainanonymous, say they don’t know exactly howmuch money has been raised, but it’s obviousthat investments in Aché settlements aremeagre at best, not even a fraction of whathas been raised for park management.

corporations, TNC score on carbon deals- aché lose

One of the main threats to the world’s forestsis climate change. It comes as no surprise thenthat two of the largest corporate donors toMbaracayú Forest Nature Reserve areegregious emitters of greenhouse gases insearch of an image boost: British Petroleum(BP) and AES Corporation, a US electricitygeneration and distribution giant.

AES Corporation’s “Mbaracayú ConservationProject” was designed to offset carbon dioxideemissions from their Hawaii plant, a 180-megawatt coal-fired cogeneration plant onthe island of Oahu. Under climateagreements, corporations can offset, or“sequester”, their carbon emissions byplanting trees elsewhere. When TNCapproached AES with its “emissions credits forprotected forests” idea, AES was quick to signon, despite the fact that the issue of the

Aché’s rights remained unresolved. Theproject was too attractive as a less costly,image-boosting alternative to US clean airregulations. The company planted fruit treesand cash-producing indigenous trees, paid$500 000 to IFC in 1991 to help purchase thereserve, and further contributed $1.5 millionto the reserve’s trust fund.

Meanwhile, oil giant BP contributed to a jointresearch project between FMB and CambridgeUniversity on a cerrado site of exceptionalglobal importance within the reserve. Whenquestioned about taking money from thesecorporations, FMB’s officials responded thatall contributions are welcome, even if theycome from sources whose daily activitiesdestroy forests around the world. The Achéhave a different perspective: they see millionsof dollars being raised to help plants andanimals, but little to help them – the peoplewho have lived sustainably for centuries onthis land and who call it home.

48 | foei

four the new market: selling our carbon

Communities and NGOs throughout the South, from Ecuador andUruguay to Brazil, Indonesia, Thailand and South Africa arecampaigning against monoculture ‘carbon sink’ plantations. The idea ofcarbon sinks is unrealistic and the pretence that tree plantations may inany way be a solution is being challenged. More realistic alternatives toclimate change have been proposed and playing roulette with aninvisible dice is not among them.

more information:World Rainforest Movement: www.wrm.org.uyFriends of the Earth Uruguay: www.redes.org.uyCDM Watch: www.cdmwatch.orgSinkswatch: www.sinkswatch.org

biological richness and biopiracy

The Mbaracayú Forest Nature Reserve is aprime example of a minimally altered primaryforest and home to approximately 48 percentof all mammal species and 63 percent of allbird species found in eastern Paraguay. Thereserve’s pristine status means the area is alsofertile ground for biopiracy, the exploitation ofspecies of potential commercial value.Currently, FMB is tapping the Aché’straditional knowledge of the area, employingAché men in research activities. The Aché areasked to help inventory the fauna and flora,but are given no control over the informationthey share nor its flow through academic,research, and commercial circles. To little avail,Indigenous Peoples’ organizations andsupport groups constantly raise questionsabout this practice’s equity and fairness.

environmental impacts

Given the shameless destruction of Paraguay’sforests, the Mbaracayú Forest Nature Reserveis widely considered a successful conservationendeavour. Ironically, however, its success isalso its failure. According to FMB itself, thereserve and its buffer zone are quicklybecoming an “island of trees in a sea ofdeforestation”. FMB’s own research showsthat the reserve is not enough to maintain thepopulation viability of keystone species suchas the harpy eagle. And as the surroundingforests disappear, the Aché also may need tobecome over-dependent on this last forestremnant, using it not only for hunting andgathering purposes, but for the fulldevelopment of their traditional lifestyle. Inother words, creating islands of pristineenvironment is not a real solution to eitherprotecting the environment or the traditionallifestyle of Indigenous Peoples. Onlysustainable forest management, based on theunity the Aché achieved with the forest forcenturies, can protect the forests for todayand future generations.

Investments in the reserve and localinfrastructure – health, schools, landpurchases, etc – have surpassed $15 million,according to FMB’s reports. From aconventional point of view of development,the investments are welcome. But not for theAché. Missionaries and conservation interestshave made decisions for them, forcing theAché to accept a sedentary and marginalizedlife at the doorstep of what rightfully belongsto them. Many Aché claim they are nowtrapped between the expansion of agricultureand the static conservationist position: theAché must now abandon their traditionalways, become farmers, and accept a modernlifestyle with no option of return.

more information:Full case study to be published in thepublication ‘Life as Commerce’ by the GlobalForest Coalition and CENSAT Agua Viva /Friends of the Earth Colombia. Downloadablefrom: www.wrm.org.uy/GFC/

© m

igu

el lo

vera

foei | 49

part five | the new markets 2: selling our genes and knowledge

© m

igu

el lo

vera

50 | foei

five new markets: selling our genes and knowlege

The World Bank and other promoters of the Washington Consensus werethe major force behind the promotion of mercantilism in multilateralenvironmental agreements (MEAs) like the Biodiversity Convention andthe Framework Convention on Climate Change. During the negotiationsof the Biodiversity Convention in 1991 - 1992, this mercantilism wasalready codified by the inclusion of what seems a relatively idealisticthird objective of the Convention to ensure “ fair and equitable sharingof the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources,including by appropriate access to genetic resources and by appropriatetransfer of relevant technologies, taking into account all rights over thoseresources and to technologies, and by appropriate funding”.

However, the main motivation to include this objective and the relevantaccess and benefit sharing provisions in the Convention was thesuggestion that the only way to save biodiversity was to claim back themillions of dollars that commercial plant breeders and biotechnologycompanies in the North had earned on the basis of seeds and othergenetic information collected in developing countries. It was thoughtthat fair benefit sharing by the then rapidly growing biotechnologysector would lead to an impressive financial flow for biodiversityconservation.

introduction

1 [england] bioprospecting

English Nature, the UK government agencyresponsible for wildlife conservation, isreported to be negotiating with researchinstitutions to assess biodiversity in EnglishSites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) fortheir commercial potential. The suggestionhas raised some concerns in the UK, especiallysince the government has no official positionon the issue of biopiracy, nor any legalframework to deal with it.

The now widespread phenomenon ofbiopiracy, is causing considerable concern,especially in the biodiversity-rich countries ofthe tropics. Typically, agreements madebetween communities with traditionalknowledge of biodiversity and the multi-national corporations who have exploitedsuch knowledge via patents and otherintellectual property regimes, have provedgrossly inequitable. There are many ethicalconcerns relating to patents on life forms,while it is clear that the benefits forconservation arising from the commercialexploitation of genetic material have beengrossly overstated. With these and otherissues in mind, clarification is needed of thelegal and ethical framework that will be used

to conduct the proposed screening of Englishbiodiversity and the subsequent use of theinformation produced.

Many other countries have either established,or are establishing, legal frameworks at thenational level to govern access and benefitsharing in relation to the commercialexploitation of biodiversity. Such a frameworkmust be agreed on before any officially-sanctioned process of bioprospecting cancommence. While the UK has no clearapproach, it is noteworthy that many poorercountries are already taking steps to ensure alegal framework is in place.

Friends of the Earth believe that the process ofbioprospecting raises many controversialmatters of principle, as well as practical legalquestions. The official position on thesequestions of principle and law should bemade very clear through a democratic processbefore any steps are made toward thecommercial exploitation of the country’snatural biodiversity. A national debate isneeded, followed by the establishment of anadequate ethical and legal framework forbioprospecting in England.

more information:Friends of the Earth England, Wales andNorthern Ireland: www.foe.org.uk

foei | 51

Yet, the presumption that one of the most scrupulous industrial sectors,the biotechnology sector, would turn into a driving force behindbiodiversity conservation has turned out to be rather naive. During thenegotiations themselves the industry ensured that the great majority ofgenetic information, which was already safely stored in Northern genebanks, was exempted from the benefit sharing provisions. Twelve yearslater, there are still no legally binding provisions to ensure the benefits areequitably shared with the countries where the genetic information comesfrom. But even if such provisions were agreed upon, what would be theresult? Who would get the money? Most biodiversity is under the de factomanagement of local communities: only if their practices are sustainablewill biodiversity be protected. Thus, comforting fairy tales are told aboutlocal communities getting a reward out of the profits of biotechcompanies. But in reality the great majority of genetic information issimply taken without any permission. Only in exceptional cases havecommunities received some sort of reward, and those cases were onlyconcretized due to government interference and/or clever greenmarketing strategies by the companies involved. When subjected to “real”market forces, most genetic information turns out to be literally in thewild. It can be found in many places, so even when they decide to pay forit, the buyers are able to go to the cheapest seller. With many sellers beingremote communities like Indigenous villages, any price goes.

And then there are the moral aspects. Much of the information issacred, as some of the most interesting genetic information consists oftraditional medicines that are closely related to religious rituals. Andhow cynical is it when the Sen in South Africa, an Indigenous Peopleliving in the harsh Kalahari Desert facing regular periods of malnutritionand hunger, are helping biotech companies to develop products like ananti-obesity drug.

The privatization and commodification of elements of biodiversitythreatens to destroy the livelihoods and culture of local communities,especially farmers, indigenous peoples and women. The earth’s genepool, in all of its biological forms and manifestations should not becommercialized. It should not be claimed as negotiable geneticinformation or intellectual properties by governments, commercialenterprises, other institutions or individuals.

3 the new columbus: craig venterconquers latin american genes

On July 9th 2004, the government of Bermudapublicly expressed its concern that theirgenetic resources would be commerciallyexploited through two bioprospectionprojects headed by Diversa and by Dr. CraigVenter. While Diversa were collecting a proteinfrom a coral that is traded as abiotechnological tool, Venter was focusing onfinding organisms in the Sargasso Sea, whichcould turn carbon dioxide into a clean sourceof energy. His project has received 9 milliondollars from the US Energy Department andhas collected and de-codified more than 1800new spices.

Operating from Venter’s 90-ft. yacht, theSorcerer II, researchers have collected samplesin the territorial waters of Mexico, Costa Rica,Panama, Ecuador (Galapagos Islands), Chileand French Polynesia, and in the case ofEcuador and Costa Rica, without anyauthorization from the national authorities.

Craig Venter is known for his role in mappinghuman genes as part of the Human Genomeproject, where he controversially filed for USpatents on thousands of gene sequences fromthe human brain. The US Patent officeultimately denied the patent.

2 the group of mega-diverse countries

In 2001 the Group of Mega-diverse countrieswas created, and is composed of Bolivia, Brazil,China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador,Philippines, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Malaysia,Mexico, Peru, South Africa and Venezuela.They claim to represent 75% of the biologicaldiversity and 45% of the cultural diversity inthe world and act as an advisory andconsultative body to promote the commoninterests linked to the conservation andsustainable use of biodiversity at the UnitedNations and other forums.

In practice, this means developing commonactivities to achieve better results innegotiations related to biodiversity such as atthe CBD. This group of countries accepts thepatenting of their biodiversity in exchange forthe disclosure and recognition of the origin ofthe resources and if they are paid a certainpercentage of the royalties claimed from theindustrial applications of the patented materials.

© k

ees

kod

de

52 | foei

five new markets: selling our genes and knowlege

been granted or were pending on more than half a million genes andpartial gene sequences in living organisms. Nevertheless, the patentingof life remains hugely controversial, both because of its implications forliving beings and because of its impact on communities inimpoverished countries.

Companies or institutions appropriating local communities’ knowledgeof biodiversity and its uses (with or without their permission) areeffectively creating private, profit-generating monopoly rights. Thisfrequently gives rise to an ironic situation of ‘reverse transfer oftechnology’ in which the poorest transfer their knowledge to the richdeveloped world, often for little or no reward.

There are multiple benefits for intellectual property owners, the mostobvious being the profits generated following the successfulcommercialization of their patented products. Less obvious, perhaps, isthe fact that a select number of global corporations are steadilyincreasing their control over the world’s staple food crops includingmaize, potato, soybeans and wheat. Indeed, techniques to decode andidentify the best plant genes are accelerating and the biotechnologyindustry is racing to map the genomes of the world’s staple food cropswith a view to patenting the results.

privatizing life

Patent-holders are permitted to restrict the use of new inventions fordecades, to allow them to promote their inventions withoutcompetition and thereby reap the rewards of their initial investment.However, the patenting of life - a relatively new phenomenon - nowpermits the ownership and subsequent commercialization of‘discovered’ knowledge about biodiversity. It conveniently ignores thefacts that such knowledge may rightfully belong to Indigenous Peoplesand local communities - and that no invention may have been involved.Indeed, this type of patenting is commonly referred to as biopiracy.

The WTO’s TRIPS agreement (on ‘trade-related aspects of intellectualproperty’) came into being in 1995. As a result, it is now mandatory forall member governments – even those that had previously prohibitedthe patenting of biological resources – to allow the patenting of micro-organisms and micro-biological processes and to amend their nationallaws if necessary. They are also required to introduce intellectualproperty protection for plant varieties.

There are now many patents on life, covering both genetically modifiedand naturally occurring organisms and including plant, animal andhuman genes. By November 2000, for example, patents had already

4 some current patents

Examples of patented plants, which areimportant in everyday life for numerouscommunities and Indigenous Peoples in theirdiets, spiritual and health care practices.

• Ayahuasca: A sacred plant used byindigenous peoples in Amazonia for medicinaland spiritual rites, patented by Loren Miller.

• Maca: A plant used for the diet and forpharmacology in Peru, patented by Pure WorldBotanicals Inc and Biotics Research Corp.

• Quinoa: A grain eaten in Latin America withhigh nutritional value, patented by tworesearchers at the University of Colorado.

• Tepezcohuite: Used by the Maya peopleagainst burns because of its anti-inflammatoryproperties, patented by Dr. Leon Roque.

• Rupununine: Used in traditional medicine forheart and neurological diseases and for thecontrol of tumours and fertility, patented byGorinsky.

• Basmati rice: India’s most well known ricebred and nurtured for thousands of years bylocal communities, patented by a USCompany, Rice Tec.

• Nap HalWheat: A variety of wheat used tomake Chapati bread, a staple of NorthernIndia, patented by Monsanto.

• Atta: Whole-grain wheat flour used in Indiapatented by Conagra.

© s

ydia

far

han

a

foei | 53

In complete contrast, the impacts on those relinquishing theirintellectual property rights are almost wholly negative. Traditionalknowledge may have been painstakingly developed by manygenerations over the centuries, but people and communities can - at thestroke of a pen - find themselves unable to use that knowledge eitherfor their own benefit or as a means of generating income. They mayeven find themselves obliged to buy the knowledge back, at hugelyinflated monopoly prices. Farmers for example, may have to buy seedsfrom large agricultural corporations rather than saving and exchangingseeds amongst themselves. In short, traditional knowledge about theconservation and sustainable use of biodiversity is being eroded.

Friends of the Earth believes that the TRIPs Agreement must not restrictthe right of governments and peoples to promote and protect essentialpublic interests in relation to health, the environment anddevelopment. The patenting of life and the theft of traditionalknowledge must be prohibited.

5 UPOV – plant breeders’ rights

Appropriation of biodiversity is also facilitatedthrough so called plant breeders rightsestablished in the UPOV 91 convention. Itdenies the rights of farmers to save their ownseeds while neglecting to recognize theirinherent rights acquired through their specialrelationship with biodiversity. Among othernegative impacts, it allows companies to takeover the national institutional framework forplant breeding. UPOV and its soft patentsrepresent a mechanism that provides privatemonopoly rights over life forms, and as such,allows the privatization of our geneticrichness, which is a public good.

© k

ees

kod

de

© k

ees

kod

de

54 | foei

five new markets: selling our genes and knowlege

It is the collective right of local communities and Indigenous Peoples tohave control over their natural resources. It is also an important elementof sustainability. However, the act of biopiracy is taking this right awayby facilitating the privatization of biodiversity through patents.

Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities’ traditional knowledge isdeeply entrenched in the nature surrounding them. For millennia theyhave utilized and bred plants for various purposes. The patenting ofthese plants has undermined their rights to their own knowledge andthe benefits that they may derive from it.

bioprospecting & biopiracy

Bioprospecting initially aims to bring together the commercializationand conservation of biodiversity. Genetically rich countries with limitedcapacity for scientific research take samples and make biologicalinventories of their resources. In contrast, countries with a strongscientific research and development capacity, usually the industrializednations, are in charge of the identification of the properties of thesampled beings, thanks to their superior technology. The properties ofthe sampled beings, in general, are patented, or claimed as intellectualproperty under various regimes. As a consequence, genetic resources

biopiracy and itsimpacts onbiological andcultural diversity

6 [canada] court case rules in favourof patents on life

In 1997, Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiserwas accused of stealing Monsanto’sgenetically modified canola seed and in 1998the case made its way to court. It took oninternational importance because it waspotentially the first challenge, at this level, onthe ownership of genes. Unfortunately, thecase itself was fought on basic issuesregarding whether Schmeiser had used theseeds illegally, not on whether the companyhad the right to patent and own the buildingblocks of life. Schmeiser’s defence toMonsanto’s allegation that he was using theirseed in contravention of their patent was that

he didn’t want their seed and had neverplanted their seed; it had literally been blownoff the back of a lorry which was passingSchmeiser’s land on the way to neighbouringfarms. Schmeiser lost the case by a narrowmargin (6-5). The court stated that largerquestions such as who owns seeds werepolitical and best left to parliament. Overall,the decision was a disappointment, but itshowed there was a strong dissenting opinionfrom within the court. Local organizations arecontinuing to press the issue with thecountry’s politicians.

more information:Council of Canadians: www.canadians.org

Modern day bioprospecting

contracts have many

qualifications, but “fair” and

“equitable” are certainly not

among them.Miguel Lovera, coordinator, Global Forest Coalition,

Forest Cover 11, February 2004

© iz

a kr

usz

ewsk

a

© iz

a kr

usz

ewsk

a

foei | 55

are privatized to the benefit of countries with strong scientific researchcapacity. This activity is called biopiracy, given that it facilitates andpromotes an illegitimate though still legal appropriation of biodiversity.

The pharmaceutical and agricultural industries have taken ownershipof the genetic resources of biodiversity and associated traditionalknowledge through the use of patents to develop an importantproportion of their products. Between 1950 and 1980, 25% of themedicines in the US were based on products coming from plants, andcurrently 48% of the medicines undergoing clinical tests are derivedfrom plants. The economic importance of these resources has led tointergovernmental negotiations in every possible international forum toestablish national and international legal frameworks to facilitateaccess to these resources, and therefore legalize biopiracy.

biopiracy legalized

The commercial use of genetic resources, and inadvertently biopiracy, isbeing promoted within United Nations forums, including theConvention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and the United NationsEnvironment Program (UNEP). Moreover, the World Trade Organisation(WTO) and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) activelydevelop and enforce legislation and policy on patents.

With the alleged goal of fighting biopiracy, the CBD has promotednegotiations on Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) since 1999. Thesenegotiations were based on the CBD objective to ensure a “fair andequitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of geneticresources, including by appropriate access to genetic resources”.

Events have shown that while those countries that are theoretically sovereignover their resources have broadly facilitated access, the fair and equitablesharing is nothing but an attractive concept, a sort of mirage or trick, whichhas not been met with either the political will for implementation or thepolitical decision to demand it. Benefit sharing has been scarce or nullthroughout the whole world, while biopiracy has increased.

7 [costa rica] biopiracy and the case of INBio

In October 1989, The National Institute forBiodiversity (INBio) was created as a private,non-profit association working in the publicinterest. Its goal was to make an inventory ofnational biodiversity within one single entityand to put this information to the service ofthe country.

In 1991, as part of a one million dollar deal,INBio began selling biological samples to thepharmaceutical giant Merck. The terms of thecontract were kept secret despite the fact thatINBio was negotiating public goods. Moreover,the contract didn’t mention important issuesfor the country, such as the number ofcontracted samples, percentage of eventualroyalties, ownership of the patents, impacts ofpatenting on local communities and possibleerosion of sovereignty.

The relationship between INBio and thecorporate sector continued in a contract withDiversa Corporation in 1995, which wasrenewed in 1998. Highlighted in a CBD pressrelease as an example of access and benefitsharing of genetic resources, the two partnerscollected samples of microorganisms frommangrove swamps, coral reefs, forest soils and

other locations. Diversa was looking forenzymes and structural proteins that could beused for biotechnology, crop protection andpharmaceuticals. Under the terms of theagreements, all DNA sequences that INBioisolated for Diversa became Diversa’s property.In return Diversa paid the salary of at least onemember of INBio staff and allowed it to use itsproprietary technology to collect samples.Furthermore, INBio would receive royalties inthe event that Diversa licensed a product to aclient company, based on samples obtainedfrom INBio.

It must be questioned if this was a fair deal.The CBD said nothing regarding whetherthere would be any control mechanisms todetermine the existence or not of productsthat are derived from the appropriatedbiodiversity samples. Nor did it question whatthe privatization of biodiversity might meanfor poor countries in terms of their culture,their vision of the world, or at least in terms oftheir research capacity.

Since 1999, INBio has received financialsupport from the Inter American DevelopmentBank to initiate training courses for companiesto research and sell pharmaceuticals made outof herbs, tree bark and other natural plantmaterial. The end result has been the

development of companies that sell capsulesfor the domestic market to treat benignconditions such as stomach pain and acne. Thecapsules basically contain what traditionalhealers have offered their patients forthousands of years. With funds from aninternational financial institution, INBio usesnative plants and traditional knowledge topromote their appropriation in the hands of avariety of companies.

These successful examples of biopiracy arefull of unfulfilled promises and promote adevelopment model that is very detachedfrom social needs and the protection of theenvironment. INBio is a private institutionthat facilitates the privatization of Costa Ricanbiodiversity, and is publicized as a successfulbusiness model in the field of contracting thesale of biodiversity to corporations at anational and international level. It hasportrayed its own profits as a benefit to thecountry, even though the monetarycontribution has not been as lucrative asexpected according to what was establishedwhen they signed the agreement with Merck.In short, they sold priceless Costa Ricanbiodiversity on the cheap.

56 | foei

five new markets: selling our genes and knowlege

conclusion

Biopiracy results from a vision of the world that believes that we canonly conserve what we own. It is the rationale behind the million-dollarindustry that has profited from the natural resources and traditionalknowledge of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. They, incontrast, have permitted the conservation, use and improvement ofbiological diversity on the basis of collective practices that need to beshared in order to survive.

The forums that emerged as a space for the protection of biodiversity arecurrently not very different from those that promote the imposition of amarket-based commercial model. On the contrary, biopiracy is on theincrease, while the sustainable practices developed by Indigenous Peoplesand local communities are weakened, as are their customary rights.

more information:COECOCeiba Friends of Earth, Costa Rica email: coecoat@sol.racsa.co.cr

trade negotiations

Discussions on biopiracy also take place at the WTO specifically inrelation to the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rightsagreement (TRIPS). Similarly, the discussion is present in the debate onthe services negotiations within the General Agreement on Trade andServices (GATS), given that biopiracy is considered as a service. As such itmust be granted the necessary conditions for unhindered development,even if this happens in violation of the rights of Indigenous Peoples orlocal communities, or if it facilitates the privatization of biodiversity andencompasses in this way privileges that are beyond the sovereigndecisions of nation states.

Additionally, the USA has been negotiating diverse bilateral trade andinvestment treaties, given that the multilateral forums have not fullysatisfied their commercial goals. For example in a treaty with Chile, theyhave pushed for what is known as TRIPS-plus clauses related tointellectual property. The proposals go beyond what is currently allowedthrough TRIPS and furthermore entrench corporate proprietary rights,for example by allowing the patenting of plants and animals -transforming what are exceptions in TRIPS into rules.

8 developing countries defendingtheir genetic resources

The Philippines is one country that has longbeen active in this area. In 1995 theyintroduced legislation on access to geneticresources, which prescribes, among otherthings, that the prior informed consent oflocal communities is required beforebiodiversity in their territories can becollected. Andean countries have establishedlegal frameworks that provide localcommunities with a right of prior informedconsent before their traditional knowledge oflocal biodiversity can be exploited. Africancountries have developed an African ModelLaw for the Protection of the Rights of LocalCommunities, Farmers and Breeders and forthe Regulation of Access to BiologicalResources. They have collectively agreed thatno patents should be granted on geneticresources found in their countries, includingliving processes based upon those geneticresources and related traditional knowledge.

more information:Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center:www.lrcksk.org

© f

réd

éric

cas

tell,

foe

fra

nce

© s

chel

tem

a/gr

een

pea

ce

foei | 57

part six | conclusion – privatization and the poor

© k

ees

kod

de

58 | foei

six conclusion – privatization and the poor

Of all the negative environmental and social impacts of privatization,the most profound one is the marginalization of poor consumers. Whenthe delivery of public services, like water provision and environmentalcare, is put in the hands of the private sector, the consequence is usuallya shift to more profit-oriented policies.

Poor consumers are of no interest to profit-oriented industries. For thatreason, water companies tend to prioritize water delivery to rich urbanneighbourhoods, and ignore the often more desperate needs for safe drinkingwater in remote rural communities and other poor sectors of society.

The poorest also lose out when the production side of an environmentalmarket is put in hands of the private sector. While it is generallyrecognized, through success-stories like the Green Belt Movement, thatsmall-scale communities are the most efficient producers of biologicallydiverse reforestation and landscape restoration projects, it is alsoacknowledged that they are losing out in the rapidly developing marketof carbon sequestration projects. The complicated and expensiveprocedures to access the funding available under the CleanDevelopment Mechanism and other Kyoto Protocol mechanisms makeit virtually impossible for small-scale initiatives to be funded. Thehandful of well known examples like the Costa Rican environmentalservices scheme and the Scolel Té project in Mexico, have all been the

excluding the poor

1 [togo] drinking water Of Togo’s 4.5 million inhabitants, 70% sufferbitterly from lack of water. Several factorscontribute, amongst them increasingly lowlevels of forest cover and a poor river system -practically all rivers stop flowing during thedry season. The usual sources of water in ruralareas are watercourses and wells, while publicfountains, domestic connections, and wellsprovide water for urban populations.

In rural zones, most people have to travel verylong distances to find water, affecting theireconomy and their health. Women andchildren, who are normally in charge ofcollecting water, have to spend many hourswaiting their turn to get just a few litres. Thuschildren are late for school and women haveless time for other commercial and domesticactivities. More often than not the watercollected is not fit for human consumption,but people rarely take the necessary steps tomake it potable.

In urban areas, people have access to waterdistribution systems. Until 2003, waterservices were provided by the Régie Nationaledes Eaux du Togo (RNET). After 2003 thisresponsibility was transferred to the SociétéTogolaise des Eaux (TDE) and the role of thestate – which previously ensured waterprovision - was considerably diminished. Thecommercialization of Togolese water servicesultimately led to an increase in the price ofwater for consumers. At the same time,however, privatization does not appear tohave improved the numbers of peopleconnected to the water distribution system.

Friends of the Earth Togo aims to encouragepeople to participate in development, for thebenefit of present and future generations, bysupporting the sustainable management ofwater resources.

more information:Friends of the Earth Togo:adt-togo@cafe.tg

“the water supply is none of

the private sector’s business;

it must be ensured by public,

decentralized services…”.Jean-Luc Touly – a Vivendi employee who created the

Association for the Global Water Contract (ACME).

foei | 59

result of intense involvement of the public sector, in the form ofgenerous donor support and government control.

Landless farmers arguably form the most influential rural sector as faras the maintenance of forest cover and other biological resources areconcerned, as they are often forced to produce in the most remote andthus most natural rural areas. Yet, as they have no legally recognizedland title, there is no opportunity for them to receive any reward fortheir conservation efforts through environmental services schemes likecarbon trade, the sale of genetic resources or financial compensation forwatershed management. On the contrary, these schemes tend tomarginalize them even further as they provide preferential supportthrough incentives that can be claimed by large-scale producers ofthese services, such as monoculture tree plantation companies andlarge, foreign conservation organizations. It is not accidental that thefirst large carbon sequestration project in Brazil favoured a highmonoculture tree plantation company like Plantar, rather than themillions of landless farmers who have been, de facto, managing andrestoring millions of hectares of precious Brazilian ecosystems.

women, the main victims of privatization

Women form the overwhelming majority of the world's monetary poor.They also form the greater part of the world's landless farmers. Aswomen tend to spend a very significant amount of their time onactivities such as household tasks, childcare and maintaining vegetablegardens, the economic value of which is not recognized, they are furthermarginalized when the monetary economy starts to dominate sectorsthat are crucial for their livelihoods. This is precisely what happenswhen basic needs like water and biodiversity are privatized. Womenbecome the main victims when water provision is put into privatehands as they have less money to pay for drinking water and are thusnot an interesting target group for profit-oriented water companies.This creates ever worsening circumstances as it is women who areprimarily responsible for water provision in many households. Waterthat used to be free, and that used to be fresh.

Important national and internationalorganizations that advocate ecosystempreservation and supposedly promoteeconomic development for local communities,have encouraged the idea that the economichope for poor countries lies in their biologicaland cultural resources. Based on research thataims to quantify, determine and systematizebiological resources, these organizationslobby governments and local communities,pushing the need to implement tradestrategies and urgently design policies tofacilitate access to and exploitation of theseresources. Any consideration of theconsequences of turning life into acommodity that can be bought and sold hasbeen pushed aside. The question of what isthe best bio-extractive system has becometheir main focus.

Although yet to be clearly identified andhighlighted as a serious risk to the equilibriumof the complicated forces that generate life, theincreasing commodification of nature must beanalyzed and discussed. The issue of greenmarkets in Colombia and other countries shouldthus be reviewed and assessed from a critical,corrective and propositional perspective.

On the basis of commercial feasibility studiesand biological diversity research, organizationssuch as the Alexander von Humboldt Instituteand the Bolsa Amazonía Colombiana, havemade efforts to demonstrate that since thepotential of biological resources in Colombia isso immense, it is essential to develop a clearpolicy regarding access to them,encompassing a strong strategy of greenmarkets. This initiative for thecommodification of life is two pronged; on theone hand it promotes legislation to regulateaccess and extraction of biological resources;and on the other, it stimulates the exploitationand extraction of those resources.

The concept of green markets promotes theidea that products that are manufactured in aspecial way (organic products, communityproducts, traditional or indigenous products)can and should be sold and paid for with a pricedifferential. There is no doubt that theseproducts, produced with extra merits, must bespecially valued. Yet trying to put into monetaryterms the complex web of values contained inagricultural products that are cultivated andprocessed in an organic and communal way, orin handicrafts made by indigenouscommunities, represents an objective that is anoffence to the complexity of life.

2 [colombia] monetarization of life: the case of green markets

© c

ensa

t©

tat

ian

a ro

a, f

oe c

olom

bia

60 | foei

six conclusion – privatization and the poor

In addition, large-scale plantations are clearly not forests, because theformer do not provide any of the non-timber forest products providedby the latter, such as food, fuel, material for handicrafts, resources usedfor housing, household items and medicines. They also deplete thewater resources they depend on. In forest-dependent communities it isprecisely these non-timber products that are essential for householdsurvival and it is the women who are responsible for their collection. Thespread of large-scale tree plantations, therefore, often has the effect ofincreasing the burden on women’s time and energy, as they are forcedto spend more hours and cover greater distances in order to obtain non-timber products without which the household cannot survive.

The privatization of traditional knowledge and genetic resources (suchas medicinal plants) through biopiracy also has an impact on women.While women are often the main caretakers of traditional knowledgeand medicinal plants in the community, providing these essentialhealth care services free to their families and other communitymembers, biopiracy tends to be men's business. It is the men whonormally hold the formal decision-making power in the community, andthe land titles. Thus, if a pharmaceutical company that wants to buytraditional knowledge and medicine approaches a community, it isnormally the men who decide whether to sell that knowledge, and

Paying a high price for water hits women particularly hard as it putsanother burden on their already relatively small income. Moreover, itmakes them even more dependent upon their husbands or partnerswho tend to be the main earners of cash income in the family. In mostsocieties men are still free from household and childcare tasks, whichmeans that they can dedicate all their time to remunerated work. Evenin agriculture, where, in addition to maintaining the family vegetablegardens, fruit trees and other sources of essential nutrients forhousehold consumption, women are often also involved in theproduction of cash crops, they rarely have control over the monetaryincome generated by the sale of such crops.

Large-scale tree plantations, favored by carbon trade schemes alsomarginalize women. In many societies women are responsible forgathering fuelwood, but they seldom have the money to pay for it.When energy provision is taken over by the commercial carbon market,whether through large-scale tree plantations or other commercialenergy services, women again risk marginalization, becoming yet moredependent on their husbands' income.

The real objective of these initiatives must bequestioned when extractive policies arealready being promoted, and while at theinternational level negotiations are beingundertaken to decide access to and benefitsharing of biological resources. Questionsarise particularly when there does not seem tobe any justice prevailing or an equitabledistribution of the benefits derived from thecurrent trade in biological resources inColombia and other Latin American countries.

Moreover, instead of advocating the need toregulate access to biological and geneticresources through a broad and rigorousinternational agreement, these initiativeslegitimize attempts by private companies andmultinational corporations to bilaterallynegotiate access to what historically belonged toindigenous and local communities. This includesendless amounts of plant and animal species,water resources and traditional knowledge.

According to native and peasant peoplesaround the world, the negotiations onresources such as land, water and livingspecies are not representing their interests,but those of the new “gangsters of life”.

It is quite evident that the complexity of bio-cultural relationships that sustain the beliefsand social practices in which many of the

To pretend that values such as solidarity,respect, affection or brotherhood that areimprinted on some products can be measuredin monetary terms is to immediately destroytheir quality, and simplifies them to such anextent that they lose all their real value.Money can be a useful and proper way tomeasure the value of some productsquantitatively, but it cannot measure otherunderlying values, such as unique conditionsof production imbued with deep social andcultural meanings. Trying to do so representsan assault against the richness of life.

An example of the promotion of greenmarkets is the joint call for projects issued inApril 2003 by the Colombian governmentthrough its Plan Colombia, and the FundacionChemonics Colombia (part of ChemonicsInternational), a USAID contractor. Theyprovide financial support for initiatives thatinvolve the alternative development ofagricultural products and fulfil therequirements of the Alternative DevelopmentProgram of the Presidential Advisory for thePlan Colombia. These requirements take intoconsideration the economic potential andsustainability of the resulting products. Thecall received 175 requests for project funding,all of which were related to products such ascacao, rubber, forest products and coffee.

Some of these projects, especially thoseregarding oil palm and cacao, are now beingimplemented with the help of thegovernment in some regions of Colombia,particularly in the province of Norte deSantander, ignoring the impacts this can haveon the biodiversity of the territories.

On the flip side of the coin is a blunt initiativeto formulate a national policy to regulateaccess to a broad span of biological resources.According to the Alexander von HumboldtInstitute and the Bolsa Amazonía Colombiana,these resources can range from forest seedsand Amazonian fruits, ornamental butterfliesand fish, to endemic cooking products andunique landscapes that can be exploited bymeans of Eco-tourism. This approach isillustrated by the projects which theAlexander von Humboldt Institute developstogether with the Regional AutonomicCorporations (CARs) and other governmentbodies such as the National EnvironmentalSystem (SINA). These are aimed at promoting,coordinating and carrying out research on theimpact of policies that promote access tonatural and cultural diversity, and emphasisethe need to generate framework legislation onthe knowledge and uses of biodiversity.

foei | 61

receive the monetary reward. Moreover, the subsequent patents appliedon these traditional medicines can make it impossible for women to usetheir own knowledge, even if the health of their own children is at stake.

Women also form the majority of the world's landless. Even when afamily does have formal title to a piece of land, the holder of the titledeed is generally the man, leaving the woman excluded from the carbonsinks and water abatement schemes that are currently being developedby neo-liberal think-tanks. However, the Green Belt Movement was notaccidentally a women's movement: it is women who have been theleading force behind the conservation of forests, woods, wetlands andother precious ecosystems that provide them with the non-monetaryresources they need to take care of their families. This varies from basicneeds like drinking water, edible plants, honey, traditional medicine,fuelwood and fodder, to ornaments like flowers for cultural festivities.

Of course, increasing the monetary power of women by engaging themin the formal economy, through increased employment opportunities,will make the impact of the privatization of basic services less harsh. Thisis the recipe that the IFIs prescribe. Yet, do we really want to fully privatizechild and parental care, the care for households and homegardens,cultural events and the many other informal activities that take upwomen's time? The main problem with the "efficiency" approach that

advocates incorporating women into the waged labour market is that itignores women’s other socially assigned responsibilities and by defaultregards women’s time as infinitely elastic.

Nature's value to us cannot be valued in monetary terms. This isrecognized by many, and included in the formal policyrecommendations in the Convention on Biodiversity. Yet, there is still toolittle awareness that this also means that nature will be disadvantagedin a monetary economy. Privatizing nature means more thanmarginalizing the monetary poor. It means marginalizing our values.

African-Colombian, indigenous and peasantcommunities are living, are necessarilysimplified when those that trade with life tryto reduce them to commodities that can benegotiated in monetary terms. Theprivatization of life puts at stake the legalrights of every community to their ownculture, diversity, and their right to determinetheir own living conditions in an autonomousand sovereign way. The negotiations carriedout by the “gangsters of life” through bodiessuch as the United Nations or the WTO arethreatening the production of handicrafts,animal husbandry and food that communitieshave traditionally developed only with theobjective of promoting solidarity relationshipsamong peoples and nations. In contrast,production that is developed with theexclusive objective of monetary accumulationresults in the destruction of local markets andthe undermining of the social and culturalpractices that sustain the life of communities.

In contrast, what should be demanded is thatthe peasant, family, or indigenous farm unitsbe given autonomy to identify and prioritizetheir needs and problems, in such a way thatthey can design solutions according to thelocal communities’ potentials and rights. Inthe same way, it is crucially important that the

marketing of products is undertaken directlyby the producing communities, usingstrategies and methods according to theirtraditions, in such a way that they can tradenot only through money but through barter,loans, exchange and by collective productionand consumption.

This kind of strategy, resulting from collectiveresearch and participatory practices, canstrengthen and enhance values that are notmeasurable and cannot be reduced tomonetary terms. This consists of thedemocratization of the conditions forproduction and marketing achieved throughcommunity and participatory planning. It alsoincludes the strengthening of peasant andethnic organizational capacity throughcommunity empowerment, as well as thegeneration of communitarian links and socialnetworks, reinforcing solidarity andrelationships of mutual respect. Finally, itcreates the possibility of autonomouslydeciding the future of the biophysicalenvironment, how surpluses should beallocated and what purpose their physicalspaces will be put to.

more information:CENSAT Agua Viva / Friends of the EarthColombia www.censat.org

© f

réd

éric

cas

tell,

foe

fra

nce

© c

ensa

t

© f

oe c

olom

bia

3 [russia – siberia] communism and capitalism: different roads to the same place

Nowhere in the world is the issue ofprivatization more poignant than in theformer Soviet Union, a country where not solong ago just the idea of private control ofnatural resources was absurd and antitheticalto the country’s ruling Communist ideology.

International Financial Institutions, such as theWorld Bank and IMF, have had a strong hand inprivatizing Russia’s forests and agriculture,prompting corporations to take over nationalproperty and encouraging the government togo forward with privatization schemes. Theirreasoning, like the government’s, is classictrickle-down economics. While there might besome positive aspects to privatizing resourcespoorly managed by the State, the evidenceoverwhelmingly points to a disaster for theenvironment and well-being of Russians. Pricehikes for natural resources now controlled byprofit-motivated companies are alreadyburdening the majority of Russians and socialtension is growing.

In the Krasnoyarsk region, in Central Siberia,prices are indeed on the rise as a result ofincreasingly privatized and concentratedownership of natural resources, agriculturallands and the production of marketable

goods. Before privatization, few people lived inthis region, with its harsh environment. Theland could sustain the population, and thecost of protecting the environment wasminimal. Today, as industry is beingdeveloped, more people are moving into thearea and already the quality of life has fallen.Illegal logging and poaching are on the rise.The moose population has fallen to 10 percentof carrying capacity. The same fate hasbefallen the Siberian red deer, the roe deer,sturgeon, and to a lesser extent, salmon.Trucks drive over grass cover to avoid muddyroads. Companies and workers are dumpingwaste onto river banks and roadsides.

In Russia, privatization, and capitalism as awhole, has led primarily to the economicempowerment of the already rich, anoutcome ironically similar to that experiencedunder Communist rule.

more information:Friends of the Siberian Forests.Full case study to be published in thepublication ‘Life as Commerce’ by the GlobalForest Coalition and CENSAT Agua Viva /Friends of the Earth Colombia. Downloadablefrom: www.wrm.org.uy/GFC/

62 | foei

six conclusion – privatization and the poor

At the change of the Millennium, Heads of States from all over theworld came together at the United Nations to set themselves anambitious set of goals: the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).They pledged, stronger and more concretely than they had ever donebefore, to combat poverty, hunger, disease, the discrimination ofwomen, and environmental degradation. Concrete goals were set,amongst others, to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger, to promotegender equality and empower women, to combat the most importantdiseases and child mortality and to ensure environmental sustainability.Specific targets were set for each of these goals, including the target tointegrate the principles of sustainable development into countrypolicies and programmes and reverse the loss of environmentalresources, and the target to halve, by 2015, the proportion of peoplewithout sustainable access to safe drinking water.

Yet, as concluded by the first reports of the Millennium Development Project,which reviews progress in achieving these targets, the lack of financial resources

is a major stumbling block for the implementation of these goals. The moneythat is pumped into the war in Iraq is more than enough to meet all the MDGs,yet regretfully, securing access to oil has turned out to be a higher priority for theworld’richest governments than combating poverty, hunger and AIDS.

But IFIs and other promoters of the Washington consensus found a way out ofthe dilemma: privatizing the Millennium Development Goals. The new recipe iscalled public-private partnerships. By involving the private sector, including largeNGOs, in the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals, newsources of private funding could be tapped. Governments were recommended,and often even forced, to involve the private sector in the provision of a widearray of basic services, ranging from water, education and health care, toenvironmental protection. As a result, corporations play an increasingly largerole in the implementation of the MDGs: in some countries, for example, theoverwhelming majority of reproductive health care centres is in private hands.

The privatization of environmental governance in general also entails thesevere risk that the corporations who provide generous financialcontributions to the implementation of environmental commitments, willalso start to set environmental policies. An alarming example is the newpartnerships between multilateral environmental agreements and industry.Bayer for example, a multinational with a vested interest in biotechnology, iscontributing generously to the implementation of the Convention to CombatDesertification. Needless to say, genetically modified crops are one of the

the millenniumdevelopment goalsfor sale!

© f

rien

ds

of s

iber

ian

for

ests

© f

rien

ds

of s

iber

ian

for

ests

foei | 63

solutions to desertification promoted by this partnership. Carbon traders likethe FACE foundation are involved as “independent advisors” on carbonsequestration policies in the Climate Convention. The Nature Conservancyacts as an “independent advisor” on protected area policies for theConvention on Biodiversity. Even more fascinating is the joint policy paper fullof beautiful photos of colourful birds and trees on protected areas that wasproduced by the Secretariat to the Convention on Biodiversity in partnershipwith the multinational oil company Shell Inc. Needless to say this policy paperincluded the remarkable recommendation that oil exploration in protectedareas should be possible, as long as it is done under certain conditions.

And even the UN Environment Program, one of the poorest of all UNinstitutions, is increasingly reaching out its hands to the private sector - forfinancial contributions that is. Now that governments are still refusing to paythe normal mandatory contributions to this UN institution, UNEP’sfunctioning is frighteningly dependent on voluntary contributions, includingvoluntary contributions from its “partners” in business and industry.

Yet, this corporate control and privatization of public policy comes at a price. Thispublication describes in detail how privatization of water and biodiversity haslead to severe negative social and environmental impacts in many countries. Itis the monetary poor, especially women, who pay the highest price, whichmakes this approach de facto incompatible with the first and third MDGs.

It is time governments stop selling out their responsibilities. In countries likeIndonesia, there is a tendency for governments to withdraw even further fromsectors like education and health care, now that public-private partnerships aretaking over the implementation of the Millennium DevelopmentGoals in the fieldof education and health care. But it is governments who committed themselvesto the MDGs. It is governments who committed themselves, atthe World Summitfor Social Development, to dedicate 20 percent of their budget to social serviceslike education and health care. It is governments who committed themselves tothe implementation of Agenda 21, the 600-plus-page book of recommendationsthat came out of the United Nations Conference on Environment andDevelopment in 1992, and the Johannesburg Plan of Action that came out of theWorld Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002. It is governments whocommitted themselves to the almostclassical targetof 0.7 percentGDP for OfficialDevelopment Assistance. It is governments who should ensure MDG 7 to ensureenvironmental sustainability is fulfilled. And it is governments who should fulfilthe MDG to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger.

If there is one thing we learned from the war in Iraq, it is that there is nolack of money. There is no need to sell nature and other commons, ifgovernments would just, for once, fulfil their promises.

more information: United Nations Millennium Development Goals:www.un.org/millenniumgoals/

4 [latvia] finnish pulp factorythreatens local forests Environmentally sensitive areas such as

nearby bogs are threatened, and the increasein acidic air pollutants will change the foreststructure, damaging conifers and increasingdefoliation. One of the sites that will beaffected is Kalsnava, a pine plantation with aseed gene pool for which Latvia is famous, andan arboretum consisting of 2 382 treevarieties. Moreover, several protected plantspecies, including different types of moss andfungi, and animal species such as black storks,black grouse, eagles, cranes, and corncrakesare being threatened by the planned mill.

Friends of the Earth Latvia (VAK) iscampaigning against the pulp mill and isaiming to get the forest assigned Natura 2000status, making it part of the EuropeanCommission’s network of importantecological areas.

more information:Vides aizsardz_bas klubs- VAK, Friends of EarthLatvia: www.vak.lv

Latvia’s 1500ha Ozolsala forest, containingtrees over 100 years old, is presentlythreatened by the plans of Finnish pulpcompany Metsaliitto to build a gigantic newpulp mill in the area. Although public property,the forest is practically being privatized andgiven as a gift to Baltic Pulp, of whichMetsaliitto is a majority owner.

The IUCN has included the forest in a networkof ecological corridors within Europe as itserves an important function in maintainingenvironmental and biological diversity in theregion.

With a capacity to produce 600 000 tonnesannually, the pulp mill will harm connectedecological corridors and neighbouring naturesites, as well as damaging the unique nativebiodiversity of the area through air pollution,new roads and buildings, increased traffic andthe use of chemicals. Of particular concern isthe possible release of chlorine dioxide used inthe pulping process into Latvia’s main river,the Daugava, which runs through adjacentnature areas. The Daugava sustains small andmedium fisheries, and its basin is a source ofdrinking water for a large number of people.

© f

oe la

tvia

© f

oe la

tvia

ww

w.foei.org

copyrigh

tfron

tcover sch

eltema/green

peace

International

Publ

ish

ed J

anu

ary,

200

5 in

Am

ster

dam

, Th

e N

eth

erla

nds