Only a radical change in forest policy can guarantee attainment of the Millennium Development Goals
Download 1.04 Mb.
|
1 2
Funny enough, there has seldom been an institution that has so openly admitted its own wrong-doings as the World Bank. In 1991 they even adopted a radically new Forest Policy, which was presented as a response to decades of vehement NGO criticism. Needless to say this forest policy was not implemented, a very common feature in global forest policy, but at least on paper there was some recognition that it might be useful to rethink project proposals that clearly lead to the destruction of thousands of hectares of primary forests. However, even that meager policy was too much for the die-hards within the WB, who were afraid that the policy had a 'chilling effect' on forest-related loans. And as making career within the WB means wasting as much money as possible rather than applying restrictive policies that might actually contribute something to sustainable development, the policy was replaced in 2002 by a classic "you cannot save it if you cannot chop it" policy. Primary forests were once again opened up for logging and other forms of devastation, and the aim of halting deforestation was replaced by an aim to "create better opportunities for private sector investment in forest management". Moreover, the 2002 policy does not address destruction caused by the International Finance Corporation (IFC) and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency, the two most powerful choppers of the World Bank Group, which have lend or guaranteed millions of dollars to oilpalm plantations, expansion of soy production and other major causes of forest loss. It does not address structural adjustment policies, which form the major force behind the rapid encroachment of the agricultural frontier into forests like the Amazon. And it actively promotes large-scale monoculture plantations, allowing such plantations to replace natural forests, something that even Kyoto does not allow (yet…). And it is important to emphasize that not only World Bank loans to other sectors destroy forests. Some of the most environmentally destructive and socially unacceptable WB initiatives are projects that are supposed to be an implementation of WB """sustainable forest management""" policy, including SFM policies financed through PROFOR, and the WB-WWF Forest Alliance. In fact, WB SFM projects make one think of the bizarre medieval cure of bleeding when doctors thought the best way to cure a patient was to let him bleed to death. One clear example is the Andhra Pradesh Community Forestry Project in India. This project was presented as an improvement from the Joint Forest Management approach of "you work, we make profit", but it has failed to trigger greater participation of villagers in forest management decision making, or the promised compensation for forced resettlement. In several villages, the project administrators are putting pressure upon people to enter into contract with private forestry and pulp firms to establish plantations of eucalyptus and teak on their lands against the wishes of their fellow community members. Villagers that dare to challenge these 'instructions' are threatened with legal sanctions and/or exclusion from the project benefits. Other "pro forestry" Bank projects include a major initiative to increase logging in the as yet relatively unspoiled rainforest of the democratic Republic of Congo by 60 to 100 times through the creation of a 'favorable climate for industrial logging'. Needless to say there has been virtually no consultation of local communities or other groups of civil society about this new project, which is expected to trigger a wave of illegal logging over a country that has proven to be unable to implement even the most basic rules of law and order. The World Bank's IFC also provided a loan of 50 million USD to the plantation company Aracruz Cellulose S.A., which is heavily criticized for its destruction of massive areas of Atlantic rainforest, its pollution and diversion of rivers, its suppression of local communities and trade unions and its refusal to recognize the land rights of the Indigenous Peoples whose territories it has occupied. So can't the WB do anything right? Well, actually, it can't. After 60 years of evidence we cannot draw any other conclusion than that the World Bank is morally, politically and economically incapable of contributing anything positive to the world's forests. Most forest values cannot be calculated in monetary terms, and the most important forest users, like Indigenous Peoples, women and landless farmers, have little financial resources. This means that large loans promoting neo-liberal approaches like "markets in environmental services" will per definition work out negatively for forest-dependent people, and for forests themselves. Community-driven forest conservation projects need small grants, instead of large loans that are supposed to trigger enough profits to pay them back one day. It is no wonder that the WB has been a leading force in the promotion of large-scale monoculture tree plantations (see also UN Forest Frustrations, issue 2). Its neo-liberal policies will always favor large industries above small producers, and monocultures above biodiversity. So less bank = more forest. It is as simple as that. And we actually feel this might be true for many other Collaborative Partnership on Forest members too……. Le Big One! 
*** As GFC we could not choose the best title for this newsletter. So we plan to use a different title every issue. We welcome your input as to which title is most appropriate. This newsletter is a contribution of GFC members ICA-Ghana and FoEI to the UNFF. Directory: oldsite oldsite -> Contents Foreword Executive Summary How to respond The proposals and consultation questions What will happen next? The Consultation Criteria annex a: List of Consultees Foreword oldsite -> Categories appearing in this document oldsite -> The Vázquez Collection of Historical String Instruments The Violin Family oldsite -> Owner’s manual oldsite -> Guide to Filling Empty Cupboards in Your Region oldsite -> Lax to parker boiler co. Factory oldsite -> International laser class association North american region oldsite -> Vickers barrow motor club 2008 yearbook windscreen stickers and leather key rings oldsite -> 1932 Chassis issued 10. 11. 32. Car despatched ex-works to Lillie Hall, Fulham on 21. 12. 32 as an “enclosed drive” and long-wheel-base, signifying a saloon body to be fitted. The designated body-builder was Georges Gangloff Download 1.04 Mb. Share with your friends:
|
1 2