Chinese walker

Forests have long been a hinterland: remote, “backward” areas largely controlled by external, often urban, actors and seen to be of little use to national development or the world except as a supply of low-valued natural resources. The year 2009 marked the beginning of the end of this era. Forest lands are booming in value for the production of food, fuel, fibre and now carbon. More than ever, forests are bargaining chips in global climate negotiations and markets.

This unprecedented exposure and pressure provides nations and the world at large tremendous opportunity to right historic wrongs, advance rural development and save forests. But the chaos at the United Nations climate conference in Copenhagen laid bare the looming crises that the world will face if long-term trends of ignored rights, hunger and climate change remain inadequately addressed in 2010. While the era of the hinterland is ending, the future of forest areas is not yet clear.

The year 2009 will be remembered for the global economic recession and the chaotic attempts to address climate change. But it might also be remembered as a year when governments were overthrown for ignoring local land rights and there was finally widespread realisation that addressing long-standing questions over forest and land rights and tenure is required for addressing global crises of food security, war and climate change.

In March the government of Madagascar was ousted, a move accelerated by widespread resistance to the government handover of half the island`s arable land to a South Korean corporation, Daewoo Logistics. This reality awoke many to the real political consequences of the volatile combination of insecure land rights, persistent government control of land and forests and booming demand for commodities like food, fuel and speculative forest carbon.

The Copenhagen summit neatly captured the contradictions and challenges of the year. Despite the unclear and limited outcomes, it was one of the most important global negotiations to date and indigenous and other community leaders were organised, influencing global decisions about the future of the planet.

Yet at the end of the summit, these same leaders returned home to forests where many do not have government-recognised rights to the land and trees they have used for generations. The flood of money now promised to their governments to help maintain tropical forests and secure additional carbon is putting unprecedented pressures on forest lands and also offering unprecedented opportunity to secure the rights and development of local people.

Forest communities have long been fighting for more control over their forests. Now, clarifying forest tenure and governance has become a priority for some global leaders and even carbon traders. If, and how, local, national and global actors deal with these issues will determine the future of forest areas.

Today, governments claim to own about 75% of the world`s forests, and just a little more than 9% are legally owned by communities and indigenous peoples. This unbalanced pattern of statutory ownership has begun to change over recent decades but state ownership claims remain particularly dominant in Africa. Latin America has done more to legally recognise the tenure rights of indigenous peoples and forest communities. In fact, at the present rate of change it would take 270 years for the tenure distribution in the Congo Basin to match that of the Amazon Basin.

Tenure transition from state to communities and households is both a reinstatement of traditional governance patterns and a modern development of more equitable governance, rule of law and defence of human rights. It can be peaceful and incremental but, more often than not, it has been confrontational.

The revolutions in Mexico in the early-twentieth century or China in the 1950s, for example, transferred the majority of forests from the state and large landholders to collectives and households. In Europe and the United States, communities and households own the majority of forestlands and in New Zealand and Canada, there are long processes of the indigenous Māoris and First Nations claiming their forest rights. But in a large part of the developing world, state domination over resources put in place during the colonial period has not given way to alternative models and post-colonial legislation continues to assign rights to governments at the expense of local peoples.

Conflicts between forest communities and outsiders are not a new phenomenon. Earlier in history, they were often limited in number and short in duration, with forest communities quickly overwhelmed by an external power. 2009 was different. Just as powerful global investors and national governments realised the enormous potential profit to be made from the remaining tropical forests, violent conflicts in and over forests sparked and raged anew.

Deadly conflicts in Peru and the repression of a longstanding insurgency in India are the most prominent examples but long-overlooked local disputes over resource rights have spun into major conflicts in Afghanistan and the Niger Delta. As the demand to control forest resources increases, so will violent conflict over these valuable resources.

Unready for REDD

As the dust settles from the chaos in Copenhagen, it is clear that REDD, the programme to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, is going forward with at least US$3.5 billion (23.9 billion yuan) of initial funding but without the framework or standards to guide it responsibly. The combination of new money and limited controls dramatically raises the risks and pressures on forests and forest peoples. The current lack of a comprehensive architecture for REDD means that the carbon market and funding will be global but justice and legal redress will have to be meted out locally.

REDD was held up as one of the rare points of consensus in Copenhagen: promoted by the “global north”, the world`s rich countries, because of the potential for easy and cheap emissions reductions and by the “global south”, or developing countries, for the lure of finance and investment. International programmes like the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) and the UN-REDD Programme were set up to have pilot results ready in time for the Copenhagen summit. But as these pilots got under way, the inherent complications of slowing deforestation came into focus: effective REDD will not be easy. The FCPF and UN-REDD have received donations and pledges of more than US$186 million (1.3 billion yuan) from a handful of governments but only a small fraction of the money has been allocated to actions on the ground to date.

Despite the doubts still haunting REDD, existing REDD-readiness funds have established innovative governance structures that include representatives of indigenous peoples and civil society. This progress cannot be discounted for it hints at the real issues that REDD will encounter in implementation. Yet even where this is recognised, the operational capacity to include local participation and ensure rights recognition in REDD is quite limited.

Where there is value and confusion, there is also high risk of corruption and 2009 may become known as the first year of major carbon crookedness. Just before the climate talks in Copenhagen, the government of Papua New Guinea quietly disbanded its Office of Climate Change and Environmental Sustainability after longstanding and well-publicised accusations that it had illegally sold carbon-ownership certificates valued at AU$100 million (616 million yuan) to an Australian company and egregiously neglected to consult with forest communities – the clear legal owners of the forests of the country.

Last year the widespread lack of legal clarity and enforcement and rising global value of REDD attracted the attention of Interpol, the intergovernmental police organisation, and international environmental crime experts globally. In the words of Peter Younger, environment crimes specialist at Interpol, “The potential for criminality is vast and has not been taken into account by the people who set it up%26hellip;Organised crime syndicates are eyeing the nascent forest carbon market.”

2010 is the beginning of a new era for the people and forests in developing countries. Northern governments, investors of all ilk and traders of all hues will inspect and vie for forest lands, negotiating, luring and potentially bribing developing country governments – who still lay claim to most forests – to make deals. The era of forest as hinterland is over. Forests will remain remote, but they will be carved up, controlled and used as global political bargaining chips like never before. Work to strengthen local rights, local organisations, and governance is more relevant, and urgent, than ever.

This article is a summary of an original report by the Rights and Resources Initiative, co-authored by Liz Alden Wily, David Rhodes, Madhu Sarin, Mina Setra and Phil Shearman. It is used here with permission.

Homepage image by Erwyn van der Meer

The United Nations has declared 2006 as the International Year of Deserts and Desertification, in recognition of the grave perils of desertification, a global phenomenon affecting a third of the earth`s surface and more than one billion people in over 100 countries. As susceptible dryland areas lose their productive capacity, says the UN, desertification has potentially devastating social and economic consequences, including poverty, famine and political instability.

Acknowledging those connections, the UN Convention to Combat Desertification was established after the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. The convention defined desertification as “land degradation in arid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid areas resulting from various factors, including climatic variations and human activities”, and is the first international treaty to address the issues of poverty and environmental degradation in rural areas. It also is the first pact, says the UN, to “recognise that grassroots resource-users are central to identifying and implementing solutions”; to involve local women as well as men in the development process; to stress the need for an integrated approach, and to call for a global mechanism to mobilise resources through partnerships. (At the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development, the convention was singled out as a key instrument for poverty eradication in dryland rural areas.)

In 1995, the World Bank asked John D. Liu to record the early stages of its Loess Plateau Watershed Rehabilitation Project for a film called Investing in People. That film was about initiatives that were changing the bank`s focus from large infrastructural projects to ones in which poor people living in remote parts of the world would directly benefit.

Over the following decade, Liu led the Environment Education Media Project on numerous other visits to the Loess Plateau, which is considered the cradle of Chinese civilisation. Approximately the size of France, the plateau is 640,000 kilometers square, situated in the upper and middle reaches of the Yellow River, and stretching over parts of seven provinces. Its name comes from the powdery, mineral-rich, windborne loess soil that characterises the area – and which gave the Yellow River its name.

Settled agriculture is thought to have emerged 9,500 to 10,000 years ago on the Loess Plateau. Throughout the plateau`s long and complex history, human activity produced a great civilisation, while also ecologically destroying the region. It came to be known as the most eroded place on earth. Silt raised the riverbed, making it more prone to flooding – flooding that often preceded drought and famine. The Yellow River, which has flooded more than 1,500 times in recorded history, became known as “China`s Sorrow”. But each time it flooded, the people rebuilt.

The ecological devastation of the region took place over generations with the cutting of forests and removal of vegetation cover, leading to soil erosion, disruption of the water cycle and the disappearance of wild plants and animals. A cycle of poverty and environmental destruction ensued, a cycle that fed on itself.

In the 1990s, the Chinese government decided to restore what took 10,000 years to destroy. Thanks to a complex programme of watershed management – formulated by the World Bank in cooperation with the Chinese Ministry of Water Resources and the local people — an astounding transformation has occurred within just 10 years. Ecological improvements have shown tremendous promise, and local people`s income and quality of life have improved.

Planting on steep slopes has been banned, as has tree-cutting and grazing of goats and sheep. Farmers are responsible for maintaining tree-planting areas and terraced fields, to reduce erosion. Sand dunes have been stabilised, and grasses and bushes are taking hold again. Small dams are helping to restore productive croplands in eroded gullies, and perennial crops (such as orchard fruits) are reducing the disruption of soil cover and helping to diversify local economies.

The successful start to the ambitious rehabilitation of the Loess Plateau has significant implications for other places on earth which suffer from large-scale environmental degradation as a result of human impact, and can serve as model for those regions.

The plateau`s tale, Liu believes, provides the kind of critical knowledge the world needs now if it is to envision a sustainable future for a human race living in harmony and sharing the planet`s resources. With support from several development agencies, he has collected more than 100 hours of videotape of the region, its people and the ongoing rehabilitation effort. A fraction of those tapes will make up his latest film project, China`s Sorrow, Earth`s Hope.

The Author: Maryann Bird is a London-based journalist

Still image taken from John D. Liu’s film China`s Sorrow, Earth`s Hope

“Flooding has brought the most destruction to Fujian” over recent years, says deputy professor of ecology at Xiamen University Li Zhenji, but “the people can`t understand [why].”

There is no confusion that natural disasters can be deadly. Floods, droughts and (to a lesser extent) earthquakes cost countless lives and billions of yuan each year. Li recalls the 1998 flooding in Fujian as “the worst flood for 200 years.” The question which locals do not understand, rather, is why forests are not doing the job they were designed to do.

Ordinarily, forests shelter the earth`s soil from excess moisture, helping to avert natural disasters such as flooding and landslides and Fujian has the highest rate of forest coverage in China – more than 60%. “So why do we suffer these floods?” asks Li rhetorically.

In fact, Fujian`s status as China`s most forested province is misleading. “Since 1949 there have been three major changes in vegetation,” explains Li. “The last in the 1980s occurred when many mountain areas became orchards or bamboo forests – natural forests faced continued destruction” he continues, adding that Jian`nou City, in the north of Fujian, converted all of the natural forest which covered 10% of its land.

Bamboo forest, photo by Aaron Corey

Reforestation projects during the 1990s improved the overall situation, and by 1995 forestry reserves had increased slightly. But the replacement of older self-sustaining, native species trees with young fast-growing plantations is not like-for-like.

“The root system of a pure forest – fir, pine and eucalyptus – is much less able to retain soil than that of a natural forest and this can give rise to disasters such as landslides,” says Li, adding that “The water retention ability and biodiversity of pure forests are [also] much lower than that of natural forests [which historically covered large swathes of Fujian.]”

Research conducted by fellow colleagues at the Faculty of Ecology which studies the effect of natural forests on soil fertility, soil and water retention in the Min River Basin is unequivocal in its findings. A natural forest, research shows, can retain rainfall of up to 200mm in a single downpour and only begins to fail at 400mm. In a pure forest or orchard, floods can occur even if there is only 200mm of rain. The upshot is that the same amount of rain will produce much greater risk. Even an average downpour can result in flooded crops, it concludes.

“So why do we suffer these floods?” asks Li, repeating his earlier question – “Because of the destruction of natural forests” comes his reply.

Disaster prevention means protecting forests

Protection, however, offers salvation. “Without human interference this [ecological] weakness remains dormant,” concludes the above study. Li also claims that natural forests, if restored, would reduce the economic losses from flooding and droughts by 50% to 80%, bringing benefits worth hundreds of billions of yuan.

“The efforts spent on disaster relief would be better used for disaster prevention – and the best method of disaster prevention is to increase protection for natural forests and severely punish those who destroy them,” insists Li. Protection of natural forests that contain multiple species, he promises, would also preserve biodiversity, help to prevent disease (by diverting bugs away from local crops) and reduce local poverty, which has been hit by soil erosion associated with deforestation.

But “If fast-growing forests continue to replace natural ones, these natural disasters will worsen,” warns Li.

Forestry authorities are an accomplice in environmental destruction

Local forestry bureau chief Hong Shenghe confirms that forestry officials are on the frontline in protection efforts and provides reassurances that “Without our approval, nobody can touch a single tree.” But the commitment of the bureau has been directly challenged by villagers in Fuzhu Village who allege that regulations have been routinely broken to accommodate local businesses such as Fangte, a local forestry company accused of felling natural forests in cahoots with local officials.

“Fangte were employing people to fell trees before they had permission” according to villagers. Fires, they say, were lit (in contravention of bureau rules) to help clear the natural forest behind Fuzhu, bogus paperwork passed onto Fangte by forestry officials to cover the incident up. “They even said it was us villagers who did it [set the fires],” add locals.

Villagers eventually turned to forestry police, but were met by unyielding officials who denied any knowledge of the forest, which brings back vivid memories for the locals. “The trunks were that wide you couldn`t wrap your arms around them. It was dark in there, and steep. We never dared to go in, even to cut firewood,” they recall.

But academics at Xiamen University including Li Zhenji acknowledge that natural forests are indeed being secretly replaced, with forestry firms using underhand methods to obtain the necessary legal documents and that southern China now faces an eco-crisis. If the actions of these self-interested officials are not controlled, says Li, the forestry authorities will not only fail to protect these natural resources, they will actually have the opposite effect – becoming an accomplice to the destruction of the environment.

Meanwhile, Hong Shenghe reports that reforms which address the issue of forestry rights are now on trial in Fujian and meet with his own personal approval, but warns that “the principle of %26lsquo;who plants, profits` is more suited to the less fertile and less forested north, where it will encourage locals to improve the environment. In the south where natural forests are abundant, it may at times have the opposite effect.”

A better role for the forestry bureau, Hong believes, is in the provision of guidance and advice to locals, who currently hold land rights. “Forestry officials don`t just need to protect the natural resources, in the future they also need to offer good guidance to local residents,” he says, adding that “If we don`t, they [locals] will transform their natural forests to artificial pure forests, or transfer the land to commercial forestry firms, with the same dangerous consequences.” But villagers may ask: what use is such a reform when there are so many bad eggs on the inside?

The author: Yongfeng Feng is an award-winning journalist with the Guangming Daily.

Homepage photo by Matthew J. Stinson

People in Fuzhu Village, in southeastern China`s Fujian province, traditionally make their living from the sea. They have never shown much interest in the mountains until recently. Then, without the knowledge or support of locals, village leaders leased a large tract of ecologically-valuable natural forest to a local company named Fangte, on the understanding that they would be allowed to clear the plot and replant fast-growing, more profitable eucalyptus trees.

This is a new trend in the destruction of China`s natural forests. In the past, poverty often resulted in environmental destruction – local farmers with no other means of income would fell lumber to earn income for their basic survival – but larger, commercial interests have now taken a hold. Fangte, originally established as an IT company, diversified into forestry only this year, but already has several plantations near to Fuzhu as prospectors look to cash in on the huge profits can be made harvesting timber to supply the insatiable hunger of local paper-makers and fibreboard manufacturers.

Papermill, photo by Eric Weaver

“Forestry reforms were trialed in Fujian,” explains local forestry bureau official Hong Shenghe, “and as forestry rights were liberalized many commercial forestry firms took the opportunity to gain access to large areas of mountain land. I`ve found that fast-growing trees are very popular in the south of Fujian. Areas where fruits such as lychees and bananas were grown are now making way for eucalyptus trees.”

Land supply, however, is limited and “in some places which do not have enough land for commercial forestry, natural forests are being targeted,” confirms Hong. The displacement of crops, including multi-species natural forests, continues all over Fujian`s mountainous terrain, but expansion is most prolific in the south and the west of the province.

According to villagers in Fuzhu, companies are purposely targeting the land where natural forests grow because “Eucalyptus needs a lot of nutrients, and the humus in natural forests is pretty fertile. We all reckon that`s the main reason why they want to cut down the natural forests for the eucalyptus. The facts prove it – it grows better where there used to be natural forest.”

Parties involved in the Fuzhu Village deal, however, reject any suggestion that the leased land had any special ecological value.

Head of the county government`s propaganda department claims that “That land wasn`t forested originally%26hellip;.it was a county project to attract investment. Fangte won a bidding process, and everything was above board.”

“Fujian Forestry Office investigated the matter recently, and concluded that a number of young people had incited the villagers, with the aim of claiming the fast-growing plantation for themselves,” he adds.

Villagers, for their part, remain adamant that a natural forest once stood on the hill. “The natural broadleaf forests here on this mountain had been growing for at least several decades,” they say. “The trunks were so wide you couldn`t wrap your arms around them. It was dark in there, and steep. We never dared to go in, even to cut firewood. Some places used to be American pine%26hellip;they were over twenty years old too.”

photo by Chengyin Liu

Sources at Xiamen University`s Institute of Ecology appear to back up the suspicions of local villagers. Lin Peng, Head of the Institute, says that “since the drive to make use of uncultivated (un-forested) mountain land in the 1980s Fujian hasn`t actually had much cultivated land. Therefore, claims to be planting forests on uncultivated land [as officials in the Fuzhu Village deal claim] are certainly false.”

Meanwhile, locals also accuse the village chairman, who doubles up as a %26lsquo;forestry management official` on the Fangte payroll, of making significant financial gains from the deal and maintain that the village secretary responsible for %26lsquo;forestry protection` failed to do any protecting. The new 1200 mu (about 200 acres) plot at the back of their village has made a mockery of Forestry Bureau regulations which restrict plots on steep hills to just 75 mu and villagers are aggrieved that their local environment has been compromised in exchange for cash.

“Us villagers aren`t in it for the money. For us it`s a battle for the environment and honour. While we`ve been making these complaints the Forestry Bureau and Fangte have tried to reach a %26lsquo;reconciliation` with us, saying they`ll %26lsquo;compensate us for our work for the environment`, but we never accepted.”

“I think China`s biggest environmental problem currently is the inability to stop the destruction of natural forests,” continues Peng. “There are comprehensive measures in place to protect these forests, but they`re not enough to stop a lot of people from destroying them and planting single-species forests under the guise of %26lsquo;reclaiming agricultural mountain land` or %26lsquo;greening coastal defenses.` The current frenzied growth in eucalyptus forests could augur a new cycle of ecological disasters.”

The author: Yongfeng Feng is an award-winning journalist with the Guangming Daily.

Read on: Saving China’s natural forests (part two)

Homepage photo by Liqin Xu

My interest in China stretches back nearly thirty five years to my time working as a volunteer in a children`s home in Hong Kong in the early 1970s. It was then that I fell in love with Chinese language, history, philosophy and tradition and my life has been shaped by this ever since. I am a translator of Chinese classics such as the Yi Jing, the Dao De Jing and of Chinese myths and legends – for example about the Eight Immortals.

My interest in the environment goes back much further, to a mother who was passionate about nature and to the earliest days of what is now the world`s largest environmental organisation, the WWF, which I joined in its first few months as a schoolboy member.

It has been my fortune that I have been able to combine these two great passions and interests along with a third – that of the role of religion in contemporary cultures. I head the Alliance of Religions and Conservation (ARC), which is a secular foundation working with all the major religions of the world, helping them develop environmental programmes on their lands, in their forests, on their farms, through their investments, schools, media and as a result of their teachings, beliefs and practices. Founded eleven years ago, we work in more than 60 countries worldwide.

When we established ARC in 1995, one of the first areas where we were asked to work was in China, by the China Daoists Association. When we told people about this most of them looked at us with total incredulity. “You are trying to work with religion in China? Impossible. You want to help them engage with environmental issues in China? Doubly impossible.”

In the mid %26lsquo;90s, almost no one from secular groups outside China was working with religion in China and the environment was not an issue except with regards to cuddly pandas and a few other token species.

Today, the situation regarding religion has changed a bit. The World Bank, for example, now has a programme in Kunming with Buddhists, but the environmental situation has totally changed.

In the mid %26lsquo;90s, it was considered inappropriate to point out that the incredible growth of China and its consumerism, hunt for energy, building work and industrial expansion was taking place at the cost of the environment. A great deal of nonsense was spoken by those who knew no better about the “Confucian” world view in which progress was all, questioning authority was inappropriate and dissent unimaginable. Putting it simply, many outside China felt that China could never develop a home-grown environmental culture. For the business world, this was an excuse not to even mention it. For the environmental movement, this allowed them to tread so gently around the Chinese government that they never seriously raised any issues with the authorities. The result was a stand-off on these urgent issues which were simply put to one side as culturally insignificant, or inappropriate.

But religions in China, especially Daoism and Buddhism, were engaging with this and in powerful ways.

In 1995, the China Daoist Association (CDA) issued its first ever Statement on the Environment. This led to ARC being able to start work assisting the Daoists in putting into practice the insights, beliefs and values that this astonishingly powerful statement had spelt out.

Aided by ARC, the Daoists undertook a survey of their major sacred mountains. What this study showed was that because of the inherent sacredness of places such as Hua Shan, Tai Shan, Emei Shan or Qingqing Shan, these had survived in a better ecological state than comparable areas which were not considered sacred by the general population. This had proved to be effective, even during the worse excesses of the Cultural Revolution. Temples and shrines, statues and sacred books had been destroyed, but the mountains had still survived in a better environmental state than other areas. This has recently been confirmed by a study undertaken by WWF and ARC.

The joint CDA and ARC project also discovered that where the religious communities were still present on a sacred mountain in significant numbers, the protection of the environment was also better. Putting it simply, most park wardens clock in at 8am and go home around 5pm. The illegal loggers and poachers tend to come when the wardens are not around. On a sacred mountain, it is quite likely that a Daoist monk will be running up the mountainside at 3am or meditating in the middle of the forest at midnight. The active presence of religious people on a mountain helps to protect it.

In 1998, this study helped the management committee of Hua Shan to agree to return most of the temples on the mountain to the CDA in order, in part, to better protect the mountain`s environment.

The success of this work led the Buddhist Association of China to undertake with ARC a similar programme on their sacred mountains and the same conclusions were drawn about the importance of active life on the sacred mountains.

Today, these developments have gone even further. The CDA and ARC, assisted by the Dutch group EMF, have rebuilt a key temple on the sacred mountain of Taibaishan in Shaanxi, destroyed in the Cultural Revolution, as a Daoist Ecology Education Temple. Here, Daoists are being trained in environmental management of sacred mountains, environmental education for pilgrims and visitors and will develop information and education packs for use throughout China, but especially in urban areas. A set of wall posters on Daoism and Ecology have already been produced. In June this year a new network came into being, the Daoist Temples` Alliance on Environment and Education, designed to coordinate and develop projects across China through the medium of Daoism.

In Buddhism, a similar movement is under way with plans to develop a Buddhist ecology temple centre in Wutai Shan and to develop Wutai Shan as a model of integrated environmental management.

At the same time, ARC, in collaboration with WWF International, is developing a major programme on Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) and especially the illegal importing of Asian big cats` bodies to China for use in TCM. In 2001, Daoism made the use of endangered species in TCM an excommunicable offence. Building on this and on Daoist research into alternative TCM prescriptions which don`t use endangered species, linked to Buddhist prohibitions on using illegal TCM, we hope to make a considerable impact at the popular, folk-medicine level, as well as in curbing demand generally.

But perhaps the biggest development is one that no one, not even ARC could have foreseen eleven years ago. And this is the role that the government is asking the Buddhists and Daoists to play in making people aware and responsible for environmental protection.

China has awoken to the threat of environmental degradation in ways unimaginable just a few years ago. Gone is the blas%26eacute; notion that growth was all that mattered. The Communist Party now finds itself with a nation, hell bent on growth, on consumerism and with a corresponding loss of a sense of community and responsibility. Concerned with what the party has called “spiritual culture” – meaning higher values and a sense of wider responsibility — the religions have been asked to help reinstate a sense of a purpose beyond just self and consumerism.

Hence, in April this year, the Buddhist Association of China, in conjunction with the Chinese government, held a unique gathering of Buddhists from all over the Chinese world on the theme of social issues, and the environment was one of the key topics. Arising from this is a new range of projects and commitments by Buddhists across China to address issues such as deforestation, urban sprawl, waste, energy and moral values related to the environment. Next year, a similar forum will bring Daoists together, again to address these social issues.

What is going on?

Recently there have been frequent newspaper references to the interest shown by individuals, institutions and even governments in foreign initiatives aimed at acquiring land in the Amazon region for conservation purposes. Such initiatives arise from concerns regarding the possible role of deforestation in climate change. However, they are also based on a lack of information regarding the Amazon rainforest, and ignore important scientific data.

Climate change is a genuine problem, and one to which Brazil attaches great importance. There is a global consensus that the phenomenon is being accelerated by human actions. It is a cumulative process, resulting from the progressive concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere over the last 150 years. To focus attention primarily on countries’ current emissions is therefore wrong and unfair. Some of the countries currently responsible for emissions – particularly developing countries – have little or no historical responsibility for the global warming, the effects of which we are now beginning to feel.

The main cause of climate change is well known: at least 80% of the problem is a consequence of the burning of fossil fuels – especially coal and oil – from the mid-nineteenth century onwards. It is due only in small part to changes in land use, including deforestation.

There are many reasons why current levels of deforestation around the world are a cause for concern, but in combating climate change the focus should be on altering energy matrixes and promoting more intensive use of clean energy. The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol are quite clear on this point: those who caused the problem – the industrialised countries – must meet mandatory reduction targets and have the obligation to act first.

Although not obliged to meet any mandatory reduction targets, since it bears little responsibility for the problem, Brazil is doing its part. We have one of the cleanest energy matrixes in the world. Our bio-fuels programmes are often quoted as an example to be followed by other countries. We are therefore contributing to sustainable development and to the reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions.

Brazil is also fighting deforestation by implementing policies aimed at promoting the value of our native forest and supporting the socio-economic development of communities that depend on it. Over recent years we have achieved significant reductions in the rate of deforestation in the Amazon. Total deforestation in 2005 was 32% lower than in 2004, and preliminary data suggests there will have been a further fall of 11% over the course of 2006. These are important results, but the efforts towards a permanent decrease in deforestation must continue.

Sustainable forest-management is an area with a great deal of potential for international cooperation through the exchange of experiences and support for technical capacity-building. We welcome such cooperation, as long as it is based on respect for our laws and our sovereignty.

Brazil is an active participant in the international debate regarding forests. At the UN Climate Change Conference in Nairobi in November, we will be putting forward a proposal aimed at creating incentives for countries to reduce rates of deforestation voluntarily, which we believe would also be an appropriate way for developed countries to support the conservation of tropical rainforests.

The proposal constitutes just one aspect of Brazil`s contribution to the shared efforts aimed at reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. Brazil is firmly opposed to the unsustainable development patterns that have led to irreparable environmental damage all over the world. Brazil expects the industrialised countries, which are responsible for these development patterns, to comply with their obligations for reducing emissions.

In the developed world, well-meaning individuals who are concerned about climate change, with good reason, should dedicate themselves to influencing their own governments with a view to altering unsustainable patterns of production and consumption and to utilising renewable energy resources. The latter is an area in which Brazil has much to offer in terms of expertise and technology.

We are taking care of the Amazon in accordance with development models based on principles of sustainability defined by Brazilian society. The Amazon is part of the heritage of the Brazilian people, and it is not for sale.

Article written jointly by Brazil’s foreign, environment, and science %26amp; technology ministers, published in Folha de S%26atilde;o Paulo on 17 October 2006.

Celso Amorim, Foreign Minister

Sergio Rezende, Minister for Science and Technology

Marina Silva, Environment Minister

Homepage photo by welsh boy

China has long enjoyed good relations with the southern African state of Angola, during the Cold War the two regimes shared ideological sympathies. But the relationship has taken on a new closeness in recent years, as China`s economy has expanded and Beijing has encouraged its companies to scour the world for natural resources. From being a blip on China`s strategic map, Angola is now central to China`s strategic plans – a country to be flattered and indulged through a mix of military support, aid, and cheap loans.

Earlier this year, Angola – Africa`s second largest oil producer – became China`s number one source of crude oil, overtaking Iran, Saudi Arabia and Nigeria. In May, Sinopec, one of China`s three leading oil companies, struck a US$2.2 billion deal with Sonangol, Angola’s state-owned oil company, to develop two new blocks with estimated reserves of 4.5 billion barrels, adding to its previous concessions. By 2008, Angola will supply the People`s Republic with up to two million barrels a day. And, by all accounts, the plan is for more.

Accompanying its investments in oil, China has extended a series of low-interest loans, pledged investments in Angola`s telecoms sector, railways, and military communications network. Chinese companies have also been active in various infrastructure projects, including roads, bridges, schools, shopping centers, office buildings and low-cost housing. Most dramatically, Chinese firms are heavily involved in building a new city south of Luanda, which the government hopes will house up to four million people and help to alleviate extreme overcrowding in the capital.

China`s largesse – while beneficial to Angola`s post-war reconstruction – has not come without criticism. A US$2 billion loan, signed with China`s export credit agency in 2004, was especially controversial, with NGOs and others complaining that China had helped Angola to renege a putative deal with the IMF, which came with conditions to cut corruption and improve transparency surrounding the country`s oil revenues. Global Witness, a British NGO, has lambasted China for eschewing governance in the negotiation of such financing, while Western oil companies have said Chinese companies have effectively hampered efforts to introduce anti-corruption schemes like the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative – which Angola has signed but has yet to implement. At the same time, development experts have questioned whether China`s money, while helping to build hospitals, will actually start the country on the road to self-sufficiency. A feature of much of China`s investment in Africa, they say, is the use of Chinese, rather than local workers.

China`s involvement in Angola is hardly unique. Over the past few years, Beijing has been extending soft credit to numerous countries in Africa, Latin America and Asia, as part of its push to secure energy supplies and develop its companies` interests overseas. The “big three” of Chinese energy companies – CNPC, Sinopec, and CNOOC – have been buying up dozens of oil and gas blocks, and as in Angola, Chinese construction firms have been busy building major infrastructure all over Africa and Latin America. China`s aim, observers say, isn`t necessarily profits – at least in the short term – but rather to build influence in the developing world, undercutting western governments and companies.

This model of development, which forgoes any “interference” in the internal affairs of foreign states, is of increasing concern to NGOs, international financial institutions, and western companies trying to improve transparency, human rights, and develop “capacity” in poor countries. The worry is that Beijing will let nothing get in the way of its “go global” policy, turning a blind eye to the activities of its companies overseas, even as it tightens corporate responsibility standards at home (as it has done on issues of corruption, worker safety and the environment). In turn, there are those who fear what this will mean for western companies trying to compete with their Chinese counterparts; whether – backed by cheap loans, diplomatic pressure, and military assistance – China`s companies will lower the bar for all comers.

On the other hand, many African leaders point out that, far from corrupting the development process, China is presenting Africa with opportunities. They argue that it was precisely the meddling of western powers – such France, Portugal and Britain – that contributed to the extreme poverty on the continent. By contrast, China`s approach, focusing less on governance and more on getting things done, stands more chance of success than endless foreign interference.

China and corporate responsibility

Nonetheless, the activities of Chinese companies in Africa have raised eyebrows. Experts say that, compared to western companies, Chinese multinationals are only beginning to understand corporate responsibility. Some believe greater engagement with institutions like the World Bank, the need for western capital (including stock-market filing requirements), as well as the reputational benefits of corporate responsibility, will all encourage Chinese companies to begin to take the area more seriously – at least at home. More worry surrounds the companies` behaviour abroad. On transparency, China has yet to sign up to international anti-bribery initiatives like the OECD`s anti-bribery convention, and the EITI. Says Peter Rooke, director of the Asia department at Transparency International: “As Chinese companies expand their investment into other countries, there is a need for better international standards.”

The weaknesses of Chinese corporate-responsibility standards are most evident in developing world – where the majority of Chinese investment is now focused – and are frequently oil-related. Most egregious is the relationship with the regime in Sudan – where China has ignored US sanctions, the genocide in Darfur, and a full-scale divestment campaign from NGOs. Burma and Zimbabwe have also benefited from numerous Chinese loans.

NGOs and other observers are also very concerned about China`s international environmental impact. A report from the International Rivers Network and Friends of the Earth last year criticised Exim Bank, China`s export credit agency, for funding projects such as the Yeywa Dam in Burma, Merowe Dam in Sudan, and the Nam Mang 3 Dam in Laos. It says Exim has failed to sign up to the environment guidelines adopted by many export-credit agencies from OECD countries, including Korea and Turkey. These guidelines, known as the “common approaches”, compel export-credit agencies to subject projects to environmental review, as well as relevant host country and international standards. In late 2004, Exim adopted environmental guidelines of its own; but NGOs point out that they are not available to the public, or to commercial banks that arrange funding on Exim`s behalf. The report notes that Exim also has no apparent policy on human rights, despite loaning to countries with poor human-rights records, such as Burma and Sudan. Meanwhile, concerns have been raised over the environmental impact of various Chinese-run mining operations in Africa, including copper mines in Zambia and Congo, and titanium sands projects in ecologically sensitive parts of Mozambique, Kenya, Tanzania, and Madagascar. Chinese miners have also come under fire in South Africa.

Moreover, China is a major importer of illegal timber from forests in places like Burma, Indonesia, Cameroon, Congo, and Equatorial Guinea. Last year, Global Witness said that China`s imported timber – most of it illegal – was worth some US$350 million annually. Up to 70% of that ended up being re-exported abroad as furniture, plywood and other processed products, according to a report this year by Centre for International Forestry Research.

Elizabeth Economy, director for Asia Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington and author of The River Runs Black: The Environmental Challenge to China’s Future, says there are two ways of understanding China`s impact on the global environment. One, is what she calls the “unintended consequences” of China`s rapid economic advance: its impact, for example, on ozone depletion and climate change, and its pollution of the Pacific Ocean.

The second phenomenon, she says, is more recent and concerns its multinationals working abroad. “If you can accept that Chinese companies engaged domestically are some of the most egregious in the world in terms of labour and safety standards and environmental standards, then there is very little reason to anticipate that what they are doing abroad is any better,” she says.

There are signs, however, that Chinese companies and the Chinese government are beginning to take concerns over corporate responsibility more seriously. For example, following Global Witness`s report on Burmese logging, the Yunnan Provincial Government closed its border to illegal imports from that country. In Peru, where CNPC`s subsidiary SAPET has come under fire for impinging on the habitats of indigenous peoples in the Amazon, the company recently requested that the government remove an affected area from their oil concession. Such examples may be the first evidence that Chinese companies understand that to operate over the long-term they need to adjust to the concerns of local people.

Economy says some government agencies is beginning to wake up to the potential for difficulties. She says: “I think there is some concern within the Foreign Affairs ministry about how to keep track of China`s growing presence abroad. I think the idea of corporate responsibility among Chinese companies is just beginning to take hold. But it`s going to take some time, because the companies haven`t felt these concerns domestically.”

Ben Schiller is a freelance journalist based in London. He specialises in US politics, eastern Europe and corporate responsibility issues.

China’s exponential expansion into Africa is well known and has been the subject of numerous reports. But China’s environmental footprint on the continent has not yet been fully addressed. And this is becoming an increasingly hot topic within Africa.

Examples abound where Chinese companies have been caught flouting conservation laws and collaborating with criminals in the exploitation of Africa’s natural assets. While western agents also do the same, the lack of a powerful environmental lobby within China that can effectively critique Beijing’s actions in Africa %26shy;is a real worry.

In Gabon, the activities of the Chinese state-run oil company Sinopec have stimulated public outrage. In 2002, Gabon selected a quarter of the country as a nature reserve, protecting 67,000 square kilometres of mostly virgin rainforest. But it has emerged that Sinopec has been prospecting for oil in one of Gabon`s national parks. The company has been charged with mass pollution, dynamiting areas of the park and carving roads through the forest. And all of this was illegal, as the environmental impact study Sinopec was forced to conduct has not yet been approved. A Gabonese government delegation visited the park and corroborated that Sinopec was guilty of a whole variety of environmentally-damaging practices.

The scandal has sparked disquiet among Gabon’s international donors, while Gabonese activists charge that corrupt local officials have been personally profiting as they look the other way. After considerable pressure, the national parks council finally directed Sinopec to stop its exploration activities. But a massive ore-mining project is soon to get underway in northern Gabon, also run by a Chinese company. There are real fears that further environmental damage may be caused by resource-hungry Chinese companies, facilitated by corrupt government agencies in Gabon.

There is also growing evidence that China’s strategy is based on protecting the country from further environmental damage, while obtaining resources from other parts of the world. After the Yangtze River floods of 1998 (which caused 2,500 deaths and billions of dollars in damage), the government directed that logging in the country had to be seriously regulated. Tree planting and the protection of forests was the new policy. Illegal logging was also cracked down on.

However, China still needs wood for construction, pulp mills and furniture manufacturing. And it is now getting huge amounts from overseas -%26shy; particularly from Africa. Much of this is illegally harvested. Imports of industrial wood have more than tripled since 1993 and China now trails only America in wood consumption.

Isabel Hilton: Professor Maathai, your story all began with one fig tree, a fig tree that you knew when you were a child. Could you tell me about that fig tree and what its significance was?

Wangari Maathai: When I was growing up in the highlands of Kenya, there were many fig trees, which were normally very huge, mysterious trees. They were nearly always green and had a huge canopy. But there was one particular tree that was very close to our household, and I must have collected some of the twigs that had fallen from this fig tree as I was collecting firewood for my mother, because I remember my mother telling me not to collect twigs from the fig tree. When I asked her why I should not, she advised that this was a tree of God. This tree is never cut; it is never burnt; it is never used for anything. Later on, I understood that when our people would offer burnt offerings they would do so at a fig tree. Fig trees were for all practical purposes a sacred tree, a revered tree. Not a God, but a tree that reminded my people of the mystery and the power, the greatness of the creator who was responsible for them and all the living things around them.

IH: But despite this, the fig tree that you knew, that straddled a stream that you played in, was cut down. What happened when the fig tree was cut down?

WM: This fig tree was cut down some 20 years later, when we introduced cash crops: tea, in this particular area. And because this fig tree was a huge tree, it was perceived to occupy a lot of land, and waste a lot of land where we could plant tea bushes to make money. So the farmer cut the tree and planted tea bushes.

When I visited the tree and found that it had been cut and saw where the [tea] bushes were, I was sad but also happy. Sad that the tree had been cut, but happy that nothing was growing where the fig tree used to stand. It was as if the ground refused to support anything else now that the fig tree was gone.

IH: What had happened to the stream?

WM: I came to understand much later that in fact these fig trees are very important in the ecosystem. They were part and parcel of a system that held the soil together, that prevented soil erosion and prevented landslides. And as I understood much later, the roots of this tree went deep into the belly of the earth, and reached the underground water reservoirs, which allowed the water to come up around these roots and to break where the land was weak. The land was weak right next to our house, where our stream broke. This was the stream that our house used, I used to go to this stream and fetch water for my mother. So when the tree was cut – amazingly – the stream disappeared. And this for me was the mystery that made the tree become significant to me. Especially later on when I understood the environment and understood how everything in the ecosystem is playing a role.

We may not understand it, but everything is playing a role. This fig tree was not only a habitat for birds and for animals. It was not only a beautiful tree providing shade, but it was also playing a role in the water system. And it was the reason this little stream was flowing, and my family could have clean drinking water.

IH: Looking back – what is the effect of your work on Kenya? Do you think that you have reversed this terrible environmental damage? You`ve certainly planted a lot of trees, but has this been enough?

WM: In areas where people have responded positively, especially among farming communities, the transformation of the landscape and the transformation of the people themselves has been revolutionary. To see ordinary people in charge of their environment; ordinary people concerned about their environment; ordinary people putting pressure on the government to protect, for example, forests. Forests are very important in our agricultural practices; we need rain, we need water, we need soil – and these are nourished by the rains that come from the forests. So it has been a wonderful experience to see these achievements.

Perhaps the next most important, besides the planting of the trees, has been the raising of awareness among ordinary people: the peasant farmers, the government officials, the policy-makers, not only in my country but within Africa – and now worldwide, to help in the collective raising of awareness. There are very many of us environmentalists, people working for human rights, people working for women`s rights and people working for environmental rights. And we have raised awareness to the point that the world is becoming more and more aware that the environment is very, very important. I think that maybe the culmination of this awareness was the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to the environment. To have linked the sustainable management of the environment with good governance, respect for human rights, respect for the rule of law and peace.

IH: What exactly is that connection, though? I think many people who think of the environment think of it as either a scientific matter or a matter of culture. But they don`t make a connection between the environment and politics or the environment and peace, what exactly is that connection?

WM: Many of us are educated – or persuaded – to think in boxes. So we think separately about peace, and we think we can work for peace. So we think separately about human rights, and we think we can work for human rights – or environmental rights.

But what the Norwegian Nobel committee was challenging us to do was to rethink this paradigm. To rethink this mental attitude we have about separating things, and think holistically. Think of many conflicts – conflicts within your area, far away from your area and far away from your country – and ask yourself: why are those people fighting? Almost every war is over access and control of resources. What the Norwegian Nobel committee was saying is that we cannot enjoy peace on this planet if we do not learn to manage our limited resources responsibly and accountably; and if we do not learn to share these resources more equitably. Quite often we think that those who have the power, those who have the guns and those who have the technology can access any resource at the expense of anybody. But sooner or later those who are marginalised and denied access to those resources will somehow seek justice – economic justice and social justice – and that`s how the conflict ensues.

That is the linkage we need to understand. And that`s the linkage we often don`t make, partly because when we go to school that`s not what we are taught. We need to rethink peace and security, we need to expand the definition to include sustainable management of our resources and their equitable distribution, and that will only happen if we govern ourselves in a way that we respect human rights, we respect the rule of law and we respect the diversity of our human species. Because we are very diverse, but wherever we are, whoever we are, whether we are many or few, whether we are dominant or subdued, we need to feel that we matter, that we are important in the society where we belong.

IH: Western environmentalists are often criticised in the developing world, on the grounds that the west and its model of development carried an environmental cost, but on the whole people became much more prosperous. And now large developing countries such as India and China are following the same path. So when western environmentalists complain about the environmental costs of that development, people in India and China say: but you did it, why shouldn`t we? What would you say to those criticisms? Are you one of those environmentalists who are trying to hold back the development of poor countries?

WM: Obviously it is a very difficult question. It`s very easy to say that the west pursued a very destructive development process at a time when many of the resources in the world were at their disposal, partly because they had the political power – many were colonial powers – and they also had made great advances in science and technology. They also were able to accumulate a lot of wealth both within and outside their countries.

But I want to go back to that challenge that the Norwegian Nobel Committee was giving to the world in the year 2004, which emphasised that we have limited resources. Because we have limited resources, and we have a planet that has limited capacity, are we going to literally hang ourselves to death? Are we going to destroy ourselves? Are we going to compete with each other to see who will kill this planet faster? I think that would not be very wise.

I know it is very difficult to tell upcoming economies: “don`t do it.” But what we are saying is: let us look at alternative paths to development. [Let`s not] prevent achieving a high quality of life, but there is a difference between high quality of life, and high consumption patterns. The pattern that the west has developed is an extremely wasteful, consumptive lifestyle that clearly needs to be changed. They have to accept the resources are limited. If they are going to over-consume, they are actually over-consuming at the expense of other people. So, it is not just China or India or other upcoming economies that need to rethink – it is everybody. And it is especially those who have already made much progress and those who have adopted a very consumptive pattern.

From another perspective, right now, we are looking at the reports that have just come from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). They are saying that for the first time they are 90% certain that human activities are responsible for the warming up of the planet. These human activities include the burning of fossil fuels, the fossil fuels that are being engaged in the upcoming economies. If we are indeed at a point where our planet is threatened, do the Indians and the Chinese and other upcoming economies want to say: “let us sink together”? Are we going to follow the mistakes that were made by the western world? Or are we going to put pressure on the western world to cut down drastically on their emissions and to change their lifestyles, so that they can save themselves?

Africa is one of the areas that is going to be very adversely hit by climate change, yet Africa has contributed very little towards the problem. Are we saying Africa doesn`t matter? Are we saying other countries that haven`t reached that level of development don`t matter? I think that India, China, the US, Europe and all these highly-developed countries need to assume a moral responsibility towards the protection of the earth and life as we know it.

In 1977, Wangari Maathai founded the Green Belt movement, which has inspired many, often poor women in Africa to plant more than 30 million trees. In 2004 Professor Maathai became the first African woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize.

Isabel Hilton is the editor of chinadialogue.net.

Homepage photo by Martin Rowe