Bulletin Issue 122 - September 2007

Indigenous Peoples have achieved a major victory at the United Nations level. After more than 20 years of negotiations, on September 13 the United Nations General Assembly finally adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The vote won with an overwhelming majority of 143, and it is important to name –and shame- the governments of the only four countries that voted against: Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States. These governments, that pretend to be promoting human rights worldwide, have thereby shown that they are unwilling to even acknowledge those of indigenous peoples in their own countries.

Introduction On 27 August 2007, Tarso Genro, the Brazilian Minister of Justice, signed the ministerial resolutions delimiting the Tupinikim (14,227 hectares) and Comboios (3,800 hectares) Indigenous Lands, totalizing 18,027 hectares. According to the resolutions, the Brazilian Government recognizes that the lands have traditionally been occupied by the Tupinikim and Guarani peoples and that, over the past 40 years, they had been illegally occupied by Aracruz Cellulose.

-Werá Kwarai At the celebration of the recognition of indigenous lands, Djagwareté, coordinator of the Commission of Tupinikim y Guaraní Chiefs, emotionally declared, “Two years ago we gathered right here, in the village of Pau Brasil, to celebrate the completion of the self-demarcation of our lands. On that day the people played drums, sang, danced and ate…Today we are here again, in the village of Pau Brasil, eating, dancing, singing and playing drums, this time to celebrate the Brazilian government’s confirmation that the land we have fought for so hard, for more than 30 years, belongs to us in fact and by law.”

Although the struggle for 11,009 hectares of Tupinikim and Guarani land in the hands of the greatest eucalyptus pulp exporter in the world, Aracruz Cellulose, was a major challenge, the reoccupation of this territory and reconversion of eucalyptus in the zone to other land uses is perhaps an even greater one.  Over the past 40 years, more than 90% of the area has been occupied and exploited by monoculture eucalyptus plantations, causing degradation of countless streams and rivers, killing the fish and contaminating the scant water left for the indigenous people to drink, bathe and wash their clothes.  The tree felling preceding the plantation of the eucalyptus trees destroyed the indigenous peoples’ great wealth: the Atlantic forest, with its numerous kinds of wood, medicinal plants, ga

Very few studies have been undertaken on the health and safety of tree plantation workers around the world. In addition, this sector generally tends to be addressed as part of the larger sector of the forestry industry, which also encompasses logging and wood harvesting activities in natural forests. Nevertheless, a chapter on the forestry industry in the International Labour Organization (ILO) Encyclopaedia of Occupational Health and Safety includes some noteworthy data that it is well worth presenting here, focussing on information related to the sector we are particularly concerned with.

In Uruguay we have entered the 21st century as witnesses to the transformation of the landscape throughout the length and breadth of the country. Plantations of eucalyptus and pine trees seem to have invaded every type of terrain. This geographical transformation has also had a direct social impact, affecting numerous aspects of life.

Since the mid 1980's there has been a global trend towards the outsourcing of labour-intensive aspects of the plantation timber production model. In South Africa, the timber industry has openly admitted that its main motive for replacing permanent employment of workers with contract outsourcing was to cut costs. This has resulted in a number of negative consequences for plantation workers and their families: loss of job security, together with all the normal benefits of direct permanent employment -medical assistance schemes, insurance, pensions, housing, education bursaries, and opportunities for in-house training and career development. This has led to considerable disadvantages and economic losses to worker communities, while timber companies have benefited exponentially.

An article from Jennifer Mourin, deputy executive director of Pesticide Action Network’s regional office for Asia and the Pacific (PAN AP), referred to a situation which is hardly unique in the Malaysian oil palm sector: “Rajam worked as a pesticide sprayer on an estate earning a daily wage of RM18. The main pesticide she sprayed was paraquat [herbicide]. She was not provided any protective clothing such as boots, masks, gloves, goggles or apron.

Three years ago, in response to an article I wrote about the pulp industry's involvement in research into genetically modified (GM) trees, I received an email from the FSC Secretariat in Oaxaca, Mexico. "I assume you are aware," read the email, "that the only forest certification scheme that has a clear position against GM trees is the FSC scheme, and that this issue is particularly relevant to large plantation companies that have the resources to invest in this kind of research and development." Without FSC, the email continued, activists opposing the development of GM trees would be "left looking for some other practical way of heading off the use of GM trees." But does FSC really have "a clear position against GM trees"?