World Rainforest Movement




WRM bulletins

Bulletin 249 – March/April 2020

Download the bulletin as PDF

This Bulletin articles are written by the following organizations and individuals: Survival International; the Federation of Community Forest Users in Nepal (FECOFUN); the Center for the Accompaniment of Indigenous Pygmies and Vulnerable Minorities in DRC (CAMV); an activist from Brazil; the Forum For Women Farmers’ Rights in India (MAKAAM); Missão Tabita in Mozambique and members of the WRM international secretariat.

OUR VIEWPOINT

  • The Conservation Industry’s Agenda in Times of Crisis

    The environmental, climatic and social crisis has been a reality for many for a long time. Yet, rather than acknowledging their contribution to this crisis, corporations and allies use the pandemic to amplify their push to expand Protected Areas, presenting it as a “global solution”.

PROTECTED AREAS FEED CORPORATE PROFITING AND DESTRUCTION

  • Who Protects Protected Areas and Why?

    The conservation industry’s plan to double the size of Protected Areas (PAs) is supposed to be the solution to biodiversity loss, climate change, and now even COVID-19! Although PAs will solve none of these, if the conservation industry keeps repeating a big lie, people will eventually come to believe it.

  • Nepal: A False Solution for the Conservation of Chure Region and its Impacts for Forest Peoples

    When the Chure region was declared a Protected Area, the rights of thousands of Community Forest Groups were undermined. They keep resisting despite the overall violence and the accepted project from the Green Climate Fund.

  • Democratic Republic of the Congo: The Batwa and their Return to Ancestral Lands in the Kahuzi Biega National Park

    A group of riparian Batwa people, exasperated by the extreme poverty following their eviction in order to establish the Kahuzi Biega National Park, decided to return to their ancestral forests. Since then, they regularly clash with the “eco-guards,” sometimes leading to the loss of human lives.

  • Indonesia: What is an Ecosystem Restoration Concession?

    Back in 2004, conservation NGOs and the Indonesian Ministry of Forestry pioneered with a model called Ecosystem Restoration Concessions. This article takes a closer look at this model in the context of new and old threats to forests, and the global push for “forest restoration”.

  • Indonesia : Apa itu Konsesi Restorasi Ekosistem?

    Dalam beberapa dekade terakhir, pendekatan bisnis dalam memulihkan deforestasi semakin menguat. Pada tahun 2004, LSM konservasi dan Kementerian Kehutanan Indonesia menginisiasi sebuah model yang dikenal dengan istilah Konsesi Restorasi Ekosistem. Artikel ini menyoroti lebih dekat pelaksanaan model tersebut dalam konteks ancaman lama dan terkini terhadap hutan Indonesia, serta dorongan global untuk ‘Restorasi hutan’.

  • Brazil: Plantation Company Suzano Covers Up its Devastating Impacts with Claims of “Conservation”

    A key tactic for the giant pulp producer, Suzano S.A, to keep expanding its industrial eucalyptus plantations in Brazil, is to market itself as a company that practices “conservation” and “restoration.” This conceals its disastrous track record related to forest and forest-dwelling populations.

  • Patriarchies in the Forests in India: Communities in Peril

    The inter-dependencies in and among communities with their life spaces and practices sheds light to the conservation practices of forest communities. And within these interdependencies lie the stories of women.

  • Panama: Other Perspectives on “Doing Conservation”

    The indigenous Ngäbe-Buglé people had to endure brutal repression to avoid the onslaught on their territories. They managed to get the Government to ban mining and hydroelectric dams in their territory. However, another intense onslaught came from conservationist NGOs.

  • Mozambique: Letter-Response to Portucel and ORAM

    In response to an article that was published in WRM’s bulletin, Missão Tabita and WRM received letters from the plantation company, Portucel, and the organization, ORAM. The letters claimed that the article was untrue; however, neither Portucel nor ORAM could prove that the information published was not true.

RECOMMENDED