At a forum that brought together climate scientists from the KMD, community representatives and leaders (including traditional forecasters, religious leaders, chiefs, women leaders, youth leaders and pastoralist and farmer group leaders) ; local government officials (including from the Agriculture, Environment, the provincial administration ,Water, Planning and ASALs), civil society organizations at the community and local levels in Thika, James Muhnidi of the KMD said the situation in the three months appears to be closely related to the devastating drought of 2009.

According to Muhindi, although there was good rainfall the last quarter of 2011 with analysis of the “Short Rains” (October-November-December) 2011 seasonal rainfall indicating that the performance was generally good with all the meteorological stations in Wajir, Lodwar and Mandera recording more than 300 percent of their seasonal (above 75% of the Long-Term Mean (LTM)) rainfall, the pastoralists have however not recovered from the 2009 drought and any rainfall shortfall in the following months will seriously affect them.

Recalling what happened then, communities from NEP said they expect deaths due to starvation, migration in search of pasture and water, conflicts among communities in the province and wildlife human conflicts unless remedial measures are taken.

In 2009, livestock were moved to Lamu, Somalia and few animals that left the province returned. The few that returned came back with diseases.

A combination of drought, high food prices, the lingering effects of post-election violence, a cholera outbreak, and a continued influx of refugees from Somalia left hundreds of thousands of people in the province in need of assistance.

Experts attributed the rise in the shortened cycle of natural disasters to global climate change and environmental degradation.

December, January, February and March have so far been dry. Muhindi said January recorded the highest temperatures in 13 years and some parts of NEP have already started some water stress and reduced pasture.

He urged government agencies not to relax based on the last good rain season last October, November and December warning that pastoralists require two good seasons before they can fully recover.

However, this time round, said Muhinid, pastoralists are likely to be hit with another devastating drought before they are fully recovered.

According to predictions from the global circulations from the Pacific and other factors controlling the weather, the factors indicate the 2009 scenario…meaning that rainfall would be very little. Then rainfall was less than 20%.

The rain is expected on the second week of April and may last barely two weeks to end early May.

Maureen Amabni, Climate and Communication officer, CARE International in Kenya’s Adaptation Learning Programme(ALP) the communities will pick the information and take it down to their communities who will in turn decide what to do with the information.

AUTHOR: Henry Neondo
URL: http:// www.africasciencenews.org
E-MAIL: neondohenry [at] yahoo.com

Bingham Canyon, an active open pit copper mine in Utah, can be seen from outer space. It is over a kilometer deep and four kilometers across. A similar gaping hole in Chile’s Atacama desert, the Chuquicamata copper mine, has eaten a good part of the town by the same name and can, likewise, be seen from outer space. The infamous Ok Tedi copper and gold mine in Papua New Guinea, on the other hand, has devastated a whole river’s ecosystem, impacted fisheries and, by the time the mine closes, it will have destroyed 3,000 square miles of tropical forests, as well as the livelihood of 30,000 local inhabitants. The still-active mine disgorges nearly 160,000 tons of spent ore and waste rock per day into nearby rivers.

Water is the resource most impacted by these mines. Many mines around the world, including some in the US and Canada, are leaching heavy metals into rivers and the ocean today, and will continue to do so for thousands of years. Millions of gallons per day may have to be used, transported- and contaminated- as part of a normal mining operation. A good deal of that water will be mixed with toxic chemicals like cyanide, in order to extract the few grams of gold that is usually found in a typical ton of gold-bearing ore. Some of the water draining from mines is as acidic as car battery fluid, and more toxic.

In fact, according to the US Environmental Protection Agency, mining in the US accounts for over one half of all toxic releases into the environment, and produces an unimaginable 8-9 times more solid waste, per weight, than that all its municipalities put together. The costs of stabilizing and treating some of these impacts are staggering. A mining project in Montana is the single biggest Superfund site in the US, with nearly one billion dollars earmarked to try to clean up the huge toxic mess left behind after decades of mining and milling.1 You’d think so much destruction would add greatly to a country’s economy. Yet, in the US, the economy of mining adds less than 1% to the nation’s Gross National Product.

Thus, it is clear that there is no way that large-scale mining can avoid serious, irreversible, and long-lasting environmental impacts. This is especially true in places like Ecuador’s Condor Range, in the south east of the country where the first large-scale copper and gold mining projects are slated to start. The Condor Range, along with the Toisan Range, in the northwest of the country, where Chile’s Codelco is looking for copper, are areas of exceptional biological diversity, and are extremely rich in water resources. They are also rich in primary and secondary cloud forests- one of the most threatened ecosystems in the world. Both sites also harbor dozens of species of animals threatened by extinction, including several species of monkeys, jaguars and spectacled bears. The very steep topography, heavy rains (3000 millimeters annually) which gives rise to copious underground water, and ore laced with heavy metals, will make mining’s impacts at these two sites especially destructive. In other words, they have the perfect combination of elements to ensure a very-long-lasting environmental nightmare.

In short, there is no way that large-scale mining in Ecuador can avoid grossly violating the rights of nature as guaranteed in the country’s Constitution. The 64 million dollar question is how will the Correa government justify approving these projects, and how will the country’s civil society, local governments, and judicial and legislative branches react.

There are indications of likely outcomes. To understand them, it’s necessary to take a quick look at the current situation.

Correa is strapped for cash. The Chinese have cash and need copper (and petroleum), and have been lending heavily to Correa’s government. Thus the government will bend over backwards to try supply the raw commodity to the Chinese, so they can add value to it and ship it back to Ecuador as finished products. Not much change there since the good ol’ colonial days. The main difference is that the Constitution forces the government to get more money from the extraction of the country’s mineral resources. The details are being worked on right now in the form of case-by-case exploitation agreements with each company. There is some wiggle room in the negotiations, but if the letter of the law is minimally respected, mining companies will have to pay a lot more for Ecuador’s minerals than anywhere else in Latin America and, possibly, the world. Thus, there is a real economic incentive for the Correa government to switch the green light on for mining. However, if that same respect for the law is upheld- and specially Constitution rights, there is no way that large-scale metallic mining can take place in this Andean nation.

We know what the Executive will try to do. The Legislative has shown as much back bone to stand up to executive demands as a Jellyfish. It’s turned into a rubber-stamp-anything-that-comes-from-the-executive kind of place. The country’s court system, including the constitutional court, has seldom, if ever, been impartial; the less so now, after a recent populist referendum gave the executive constitutionally questionable rights to intervene in its makeup.

The Not-So-Wild Cards

We are then left with local governments and civil society. In Ecuador, local governments are autonomous. I’m referring to provincial, municipal and township governments (equivalent to small municipalities). Some of these have openly said that they will not allow large-scale mining in their territories. Especially troubling for the Executive will be the provinces where the executive-backed referendum lost by large margins, and where the biggest mining projects also happen to be located, such as the province of Zamora Chinchipe. In these cases, the executive will try to impose the rights of the national government over local government rights. It will not be easy; even with cooped courts. The Constitution gives these governments firm rights, and they will fight hard to keep the national government from usurping them.

Civil Society

So, we can count on the Executive to approve, the Legislative and Judicial to go along, local governments to try to uphold their rights, but civil society will fight.

Regardless of whether the local governments are victorious in affirming their rights or give in to the Executive, or of whether the courts try to reign in the power of the transnationals or not, civil society will fight for their rights, with constitution in hand. For, besides giving nature rights, Ecuador’s Constitution gives its people the right to resist activities or processes that threaten Constitutional rights. Two of those rights are the right to a safe environment, and the right to Sumak Kawsay- equivalent to a “good life”, or well-being. In the minds of most campesinos and indigenous peoples, peace within the communities and a healthy environment are very much part of that vision. And, judging by the past, communities and civil society groups will use the Constitutional right to resist in order to stop mining from creating social strife in their communities and contaminating their environment.

The rural activists will not be alone. A coalition made up of urban activists and academics, supported by a few anti-Correa Assembly members- all from the left- will also resist the government’s extractive plans, which will keep Ecuador’s economy tied to exporting commodities, as it has for decades. In a exceptionally biologically and culturally diverse country as Ecuador, their arguments goes, the extractive model not only no longer makes any sense, but threatens the country’s potential to develop a truly sustainable economy. The social strife, environmental impacts and cultural havoc, added to the usual economic boom-and-bust nature of resource dependency that the extractive model delivers cannot be justified, and is just not needed in countries like Ecuador.

Thus, we can be absolutely sure that the extractive agenda imposed by the Executive will provoke wide-spread social protests. Among other things, the conflicts will strain the popularity of a government already strained and weakened by serious internal dissent and a drop in popularity. It will also inevitably lead to an increase in the criminalization of the social protest and human rights violations. After all, we are talking of a president who, in 2007, publicly said that anyone opposed to development is a terrorist, and who’s government legally classifies as terrorism the blocking of roads in protests; one of the most popular forms of public protest in the country. And, if in spite of all the social and legal mayhem the mines are allowed to open, and given the clear Constitutional violations the action implies, it will undoubtedly lead to human rights and environmental justice challenges, which will likely end up being resolved in international tribunals, putting billion of dollars of mining investment at risk.

One of the more serious consequences of the insistence on the mining agenda will be a lethal weakening of the faith in the country’s legal system and, especially of the idea of the importance of fundamental rights, Constitutional guarantees, and the rule of law. These are cardinal principles not to be trifled with. Ecuador’s people already don’t think much of their judicial system; it can ill afford further deterioration.

If civil society succeeds in stopping Correa’s mining agenda, the first clear proof of its intention will have come from the regional meeting that took place in Cuenca, Ecuador in June of 2011. Here, representatives from local governments, indigenous people, NGO’s and communities affected by mining from all over Ecuador and Latin America, came together for three days of discussions, and debated the mining issues and the deeply flawed development model it offers. The results put into evidence the growing, and fierce, resistance taking hold all over the continent to the extractive model of development. The costs are not worth it, the consequences too great, and the people have had enough, are some of the messages that came out of the event. And, perhaps the most important message, that THEY WILL RESIST the imposition of that model.

The successful grass-roots resistance to two large scale copper mining projects in the 1990s in the Intag area of northwest Ecuador has shown the rest of country that resistance is not only possible, but can lead to positive developments. Part of the success of Intag’s struggle was due to the support the communities received from local governments, but there’s no doubt that the resilience of the people and communities and their ability to organize proved essential.

Because of this union of forces, Intag’s communities and organizations were able to not only stop a large copper mining project- twice- but also to develop their own alternatives to mining; from a successful shade-grown coffee coop and community ecological tourism, to the creation of dozens of community-owned forest and watershed reserves, and are proposing small-scale hydroelectricity production, to mention just a few of the alternatives. All these not only benefit and strengthen local economies and communities, but also maintain social peace and conserve Intag’s cloud forests and its threatened wildlife and water resources. What this sustainable model doesn’t do is violate Constitutional rights.

Intag’s example is a real effort at attaining sustainability; social, economic and environmental. Ironically, attaining sustainability is a primordial responsibility Ecuador’s Constitution demands of its people and governments. By its insistence on opening up this mega-diverse country to large-scale mining, the government, environment, and most of the people of Ecuador, only stand to lose. And lose big time. The winners, as always, will be the transnational corporations, Ecuador’s elite, and the citizens of the rich countries who consume most of the world’s resources. Left behind will be desecrated landscapes, contaminated waters, human rights violations and trampled constitutions.

Sources:

1. Breaking New Ground; The Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development Project (MMSD) Project, Published by Earthscan for RED AND WBCSD . 2002

Rights of Nature in the Constitution:

The right to fully respect its existence and to maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and evolutionary processes.
2. The right to restoration.
3. The responsibility of the state to:
Encourage individuals, corporations, and groups, to protect nature and to promote respect for all the elements that form an ecosystem.
In cases of severe or permanent environmental impact, including those linked to the exploitation of nonrenewable natural resources, establish the most effective mechanisms to achieve the restoration, and take the appropriate measures to eliminate or mitigate adverse environmental consequences.
Apply precautions and restrictions for activities that may lead to the extinction of species, destruction of ecosystems or the permanent alteration of natural cycles.

For more information on mining’s near-perpetuity impacts:

http://www.earthworksaction.org/amd.cfm

For more information on the impacts of the OK Tedi mine:

http://www.oktedi.com/community-and-environment/the-environment/impacts-of-mining

AUTHOR: Carlos Zorrilla
URL: http://decoin.org
E-MAIL: toisan06 [at] gmail.com

Andrea Carmen, Director, International Indian Treaty Council speaking at a rally for the implementation of the 1997 CHT Accord outside the United Nations during the 10th session of the UN Permanent Forum. Photo by: Ben Powless

The Bangladesh government’s continued failure to protect its indigenous peoples has forced them to seek international help.

This year, Bangladesh was a subject of heated discussion at the tenth session, held between 16-27 May, of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII). The starting point was a report commissioned by the Permanent Forum. Written by former member of the Permanent Forum Lars-Anders Baer, who went to Bangladesh last year as a Special Rapporteur, the report entitled ‘Study on the status of implementation of the Chittagong Hill Tracts Accord of 1997’ received statements of solidarity from the delegates.

The Permanent Forum, established in July 2000 by the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), is a high-level advisory body that deals with indigenous issues related to economic and social development, culture, environment, education, health and human rights. This is the first UN Forum where indigenous peoples directly represent their own interests. It consists of 16 members, half of whom are nominated by the government and the other half by the indigenous peoples, who advise and report directly to the ECOSOC. It reports and makes recommendations to the ECOSOC, raises awareness and promotes coordination of activities relating to indigenous peoples within the UN system, and prepares and disseminates information on indigenous issues. The members meet once each year for ten working days. Governments, UN bodies and agencies, intergovernmental and non-governmental organisations, and organisations of indigenous peoples participate as observers. In 2010, at the ninth session of the Forum, Chakma Raja Devasish Roy was selected, from the Asia region, as one of the 16 indigenous expert members for the period of 2011-2013.

From the very beginning, indigenous peoples’ representatives from Bangladesh have been participating at the Permanent Forum sessions. However, this is the first time that the 1997 CHT accord has been a focus of deliberation and dedicated discussion. After the presentation by Special Rapporteur Baer, observer countries, international human rights organisations, including Amnesty International and International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA), and other national and international human rights organisations voiced their support to the recommendations proposed by the study and urged the government of Bangladesh to accelerate its efforts in implementing the CHT Accord.

Political concoction

Although representatives of the Bangladesh government, including the state minister for CHT affairs, and other indigenous members of the parliament were scheduled to participate in the Forum discussion, they cancelled at the last moment, and Iqbal Ahmed, the First Secretary of the Bangladesh mission to the UN, responded to the report. The thrust of Ahmed’s argument was that there were ‘no indigenous peoples in Bangladesh’ and as such the implementation of the Accord should not have been a topic for the Forum to discuss. He then went on to discuss the structural work that had so far been done by the government, including setting up of the Regional Council, the Hill Districts Councils, the Land Commission and the National Committee for Implementation of the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) Peace Accord. He concluded by saying:

This statement has been delivered for better understanding of everyone present here on the issue which is clearly ‘non-indigenous’ in nature. This effort, hence, should not be misconstrued as a recognition of the authority of the Forum to discuss the issue of CHT affairs. We urge upon the Forum to dedicate its valuable time to discuss issues related to millions of indigenous people all over the world and not waste time on issues politically concocted by some enthusiastic quarters with questionable motives.

Despite one of the members of the Forum, Raja Devasish Roy, being an indigenous person from Bangladesh, it was rather surprising for the first secretary to say that there were no indigenous peoples in the country. Of course this argument has been used before. Although both Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia have used the word ‘adivasi’ (indigenous) in their commemorative statements, and many older government laws use the phrase ‘indigenous hill-men’, the present government has categorically refused to recognise the existence of indigenous peoples in the national and international platforms. In April 2010, Foreign Minister, Dipu Moni, following a declaration made earlier by the Bangladesh National Party (BNP)-led government, stated that Bangladesh did not have any indigenous population. The Ministry for CHT Affairs also reflected this denial on a memo, in which it instructed district-level officials to stop using the terms ‘adivasi’ or ‘indigenous’ in government documents; replacing the terms with the word ‘upajati’ (sub-ethnicity) instead.

Although in their election manifesto, 2008, the Awami League (AL), which now leads the government, had promised to implement the 1997 CHT Accord in full, the Chittagong Hill Tracts continue to be a militarized area, where arson attacks against the indigenous people are frequent. The security forces including the army, police and the Border Guards Bangladesh (BGB), are alleged to be covert supporters of these attacks. In the face of such hostility by a government that was initially seen as secular and minority-friendly, the next option for the indigenous population has been to take their issues to the international community through the UN Permanent Forum.

In response to the government’s disavowal of the existence of indigenous peoples in Bangladesh, indigenous expert member Roy said:

It is important to bear in mind the asymmetry in the status of the two parties to an accord: the state party and the non-state party. If the state reneges on its promises, what can the non-state party do but approach the United Nations? The Permanent Forum is mandated to deal with issues of indigenous peoples, irrespective of terms the governments use to refer to their indigenous peoples: ‘tribes’ or ‘ethnic minorities’ or otherwise.

Military bias

The first secretary in his statement had objected to two specific recommendations Special Rapporteur Baer made in his report, calling them ‘out of context’. Both of the recommendations were in regards to the UN peacekeeping forces from Bangladesh. While section 56 of the study recommended that the Department of Peacekeeping Operations of the UN Secretariat (UNPKO) ‘develop a mechanism to strictly monitor and screen the human rights records of national army personnel prior to allowing them to participate in peacekeeping operations under the auspices of the United Nations’, section 58(a) recommended that it also ‘prevent human rights violators and alleged human rights violators within the security forces of Bangladesh from participating in international peacekeeping activities under the auspices of the United Nations’. Bangladesh has been sending troops as part of the UN Peacekeeping Operations since 1988 (the year the UNPKO won the Nobel Peace Prize) and is currently the top Troop Contributing Country (TCC). It has participated in 46 UN peacekeeping missions in 32 countries with approximately 100,000 uniformed personnel. This has been lauded both abroad and at home, and has been a source of considerable pride for the military, the state and citizens.

At the same time, however, indigenous peoples in CHT continue to bring allegations against the Bangladesh Army of its biased stance and actions against them, and of abetting or tolerating human rights violations in the area. For example, in February 2010, settlers burned more than 400 homes of indigenous people in villages across Baghaihat, Rangamati to the ground. The army personnel, who were present in the area in the Baghaihat zone, are accused to have done nothing to stop the arsonists and working instead as a ‘shield’ to protect the settlers. Non-cooperation from the government meant that no independent investigations were conducted into this case. Apart from biased views and actions, the army is also accused of displacing indigenous people from their lands to increase requisitioned land for military garrisons in the CHT.

In the CHT Accord of 1997, an agreement to dismantle all temporary military camps, apart from the six designated cantonments, from the area was reached. A promise to form a functioning Land Commission, which would resolve all land disputes, was also made. However, the present Land Commission and its Chairman’s blatant ‘pro-Bengali’ bias, combined with the continued racial and communal bias displayed by the Bangladesh government and regional administration has meant that the leaders of the indigenous peoples have run out of hope that the Accord will ever be implemented.

Time too is running out for the implementation of the Accord during the tenure of the present AL-led government. The Permanent Forum has provided the Jumma (collective name for the indigenous hill peoples in the CHT) with a platform to reach out to indigenous peoples from different parts of the world and put pressure on the government to implement the accord. However, first, the Government of Bangladesh should recognise that it is its own failure that it could not take concrete steps to execute the clauses of the fourteen-year-old accord and that it could not alter its continued anti-indigenous peoples attitude – which led to the internationalisation of the issue in the first place. Overused statements containing phrases like ‘politically concocted’ will not succeed in shifting the blame.

AUTHOR: Hana Shams Ahmed
URL: http://hanashams.wordpress.com
E-MAIL: hana.s.ahmed [at] gmail.com

Forests contribute to the livelihoods of 1.6 billion people worldwide. Forests provide a home to more than 300 million people worldwide and they sustain economic growth. Forests also provide homes, security and livelihoods for 60 million Indigenous peoples. Today people who depend on forests for their livelihoods are struggling to survive.

But this trend is not irreversible. It’s not too late to transform life as we know it into a greener future where forests are at the heart of sustainable development and green economic growth.

Conserving and expanding forests need to be recognized as a business opportunity. When we add it up, an investment of US$30 billion fighting deforestation and degradation could provide a return of US$2.5 trillion in new products and services.

Furthermore, targeted investments in forestry could generate up to 10 million new jobs around the world. Already, many leaders are glimpsing the potential for renewable energy and nature-based assets, but for transformation to happen, forests need to become a universal political priority.

The services forests provide are essentially to every aspect of our quality of life. And the answer to sustainable forest management, moving towards a green economy, lies in our hands.

Despite all of these priceless ecological, economic, social and health benefits, we are destroying the very forests we need to live and breathe.

Continued and uncontrolled deforestation has devastating consequences for the environment, wildlife, communities, and economies around the world.

AUTHOR: Richard Matthews
URL: http://thegreenmarket.blogspot.com/
E-MAIL: smallbusinessconsultants [at] gmail.com

Photo: Liz Weydt

Intag residents lose much more than a lawsuit against the Toronto Stock Exchange and Copper Mesa

On December 2, 2006, 14 paramilitaries armed with 38-caliber guns and pepper spray fired into a group of unarmed Ecuadorian campesinos from a community that has been resisting a copper mining project for over a decade. Thankfully no one was killed, but there were several injuries, not to mention the psychological suffering caused by such a vicious attack.

This assault led three of the local campesinos from Intag, Ecuador to file a lawsuit against the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) and Copper Mesa Corporation, the Canadian mining company responsible for hiring the “security firm” that sent the paramilitaries to intimidate the anti-mining residents of the region.

“I ask the noble people of Canada,” said Ramírez when she filed the lawsuit in March 2009, “that you demand from your elected authorities significant changes in your national legislation so that what has happened with Copper Mesa in Intag will never happen again, not in Intag nor in any other part of the world.”

John McKay, a Liberal Member of Parliament from Canada, actually introduced legislation that would have been a concrete first step in holding Canadian mining companies accountable for their behavior overseas. Bill C-300 would have sanctioned the Canadian federal government to investigate human rights and environmental complaints filed against companies with the authority to cancel any governmental funding if found guilty. While some activists and NGO’s leveled criticism against the bill for being too tepid, most supported the legislation. Unfortunately the Canadian government, largely perceived to be in the pockets of the mining industry, did not and the bill was voted down. Catherine Coumans, research coordinator for MiningWatch Canada, has charged the government with “aiding and abetting” the industry’s inhumane, if not criminal, behavior.

Injustice and Impunity Continues
Last month, when three judges at the Court of Appeals in Canada ruled against the three Intag residents, a lot more than a lawsuit was lost. The court basically said that people overseas have no right to sue a Canadian institution or company for human rights violations in Canadian courts. Their statement to the world reaffirmed what many communities effected by Canadian mining projects in the developing world already know: institutions like the TSX and Copper Mesa will never be held accountable for human rights abuses and environmental destruction they fund and carry out.

“Do Canadians really want to have their legal system on the one hand authorize Canadian mining companies to go abroad to developing countries, and then on the other hand totally absolve the directors in Canada of any responsibility whatsoever for human rights abuses those companies may perpetrate there?” asked Murray Klippenstein, legal counsel for the Ecuadorians, who is also legal counsel for a widow in Guatemala whose husband was murdered by the head of security of a Canadian mining subsidiary because of his outspoken concerns about the activities of the company.

But the ruling also produces another very unsettling effect, or better put, reinforces a widely-held belief in the extractive industry resistance movements overseas: that it is a waste of time, energy and funds to try to use the judicial system in order to have their rights recognized and communities protected. The implications are troubling.

One example to illustrate this point is the infamous Chevron-Texaco case where 18 long years had to pass before the 30,000 Ecuadorian indigenous and campesino plaintiffs got a favorable sentence in an Ecuadorian court for their lawsuit based on the grave health impacts from years of petroleum extraction- and contamination- in the Amazon. The destruction has been such that it’s been labeled a “Rainforest Chernobyl”. But even now the case could be held up in courts for an additional decade from appeals, meaning that many of the plaintiffs will have died before the possibility of collecting what is due them.

Canadians don’t hear too much about the environmental destruction and social upheaval their oil, gas and mining industries are spreading overseas. In spite of countless reports of human rights violations all over the world, Canadian corporations have been very successful at greenwashing the news back home and replacing it by images of the “socially responsible” Canadian corporate citizen bringing wealth and development abroad.

However, if the lawsuit contributed to the company being expelled from the TSX, as it was on February 2010, leads to its bankruptcy, and as a result pressures the judicial system in Canada to open itself up to legitimate lawsuits brought by communities overseas against their extractive industries, then it was very much worthwhile. If, in the long run, it will contribute to bringing about legislative reforms that will effectively reduce or stop the murders of anti-mining activists, like what happened in El Salvador  and Mexico, and other human rights, social and environmental abuses, then it will have been a major victory. Much depends on how much information is able to filter through to the average Canadian, and what it will take to get them outraged to demand such changes. Another Victory for the Mining Industry.

Added to this failing of the justice system in Canada, the same week saw the superior court in Quito throw out my (Carlos Zorrilla) lawsuit against film producers working for Ecuacorriente for criminal libel. Unfortunately, this was also no major surprise given the state of the judicial system here. I had initiated a criminal lawsuit against Chinese-owned Ecuacorriente for a 45-minute documentary film paid for by the company where they falsely linked me to anti-mining violence in the south of the country.

The question that begs answering is: When the judicial system so utterly fails to guarantee minimum justice in cases of clear abuses by transnational corporations, or when the litigation is economically so out of reach for the majority of effected people, what other route is there for communities to seek justice? (The costs of the Canadian case was over a $100,000, although luckily it was all pro bono thanks to the law firm Klippensteins in Toronto.)

Communities understand, not only at a gut level but also through experience, that they are politically and legally outmatched by powerful corporations with deep pockets and decades of experience thwarting justice by manipulating the court systems. Rulings such as Ramirez vs. Copper Mesa only reaffirm this belief.

Therefore, many communities could read into the defeat of the lawsuit that their only practical (and affordable) solution to the threats that mining and other extractive industries pose on their rights, land and cultures lies in physically standing up to these projects – even at the risk of being labeled terrorists or saboteurs. Ramirez vs. Copper Mesa will reinforce the idea that direct, physical resistance is the only way to prevent community members from being murdered, indigenous cultures from being annihilated, and the environment from being decimated. This, at a time when special laws are being enacted in countries rich in natural resources, such as Ecuador, to judicially categorize acts of civil disobedience as terrorism. As of today, there are nearly 300 activists in Ecuador facing terrorism and sabotage charges for standing up to mining and other extractive activities that threaten the livelihood, or well-being of communities and the environment.  Over half of these targeted activists are indigenous, including the leaders of the most important indigenous groups in the country. Ironically enough, this happens in the context of Ecuador’s progressive Constitution, which recognizes that nature has rights, and that Ecuadorians have the right to a good life (Sumak Kawsay). Take away the only effective tool that communities and indigenous people have to protect these rights from transnational corporations and you have the making of a major, and sustained, human rights nightmare supported by the State.

This is why the court decision in Canada matters, not just in Ecuador, but throughout the world.

Written by Carlos Zorrilla and Cyril Mychalejko. Carlos Zorrilla is director of DECOIN, Defensa y Conservación Ecológica de Intag (Intag Defense and Environmental Conservation).

AUTHOR: Cyril Mychalejko
URL: http://upsidedownworld.org
E-MAIL: cmychalejko [at] gmail.com

If privatizing water were to result in greater conservation and greater availability to more people at a lower cost that would be wonderful. Just the opposite has been the practice of multinationals that control water and sanitation that are vital to survival and health. According to the World Health Organization, in 2005 at least 1.1 billion people had no access to safe drinking water and 2.6 billion lacked basic sanitation, both catalysts to infectious diseases that kill mainly the impoverished and mainly children.

Considering that just one percent of the world’s water if fit for human consumption, and given that water use has risen sixfold in the last one hundred years, the potential for profit is immense as the population is rising fastest where water shortages are most acute, namely in Africa and Asia. In just fifteen years, one-third of the world’s population will be facing moderate to severe water shortages, including in heavily populated countries like China, India, US, Mexico.

Among other companies, Coca Cola, Pepsi, Vivendi-Generale des eaux, Suez-Lyonnaise des eaux, Nestle, Danone, International Waters Ltd of London. IWL, a subsidiary if San Francisco-based construction giant Bechtel, and chemical giant Monsanto have been planning for more than a decade to make billions in profits by making certain that water is a private commodity from which they can make billions in profits throughout the world. In order for the multinational corporations to achieve the goal of securing control of water resources so they can sell at a premium, they need governments to make sure that water is subsidized by taxpayers but is in private hands, and they need public investment in infrastructural development at the taxpayers’ cost.

Under the label ‘global water crisis’, the World Bank is working with various US government agencies and private corporations to help with water and sanitation, aquifers, drought and flooding. Linking water and sanitation to global poverty, the World Bank stresses that at least 2 million death annually are linked to water-sanitation-related illnesses. Besides drinking water and sanitation, the World Bank and 17 US government agencies as well as a number of EU agencies are linking water to agriculture, energy, environment, industrial development and urban planning. All of this is great indeed if the benefits accrued to people and not multinationals owning water and sanitation rights as a means of capital accumulation that results in lack of access to the world’s poor.

If Monsanto is using its considerable reach in everything from agrochemical and seeds to land reclamation and water to corner the market in India, Mexico, and other countries it is doing so for the benefit of its investors and not for farmers and water household users. Monsanto is no more interested in the welfare of Indian and Mexican peasants than Vivendi-Generale des eaux and Suez-Lyonnaise des eaux that together control at least 40% (70% according to some sources) of the world’s commercial (privatized) water market in 130 countries cashing in on more than 110 million customers.

Given that 85% of the world’s water utilities are under public control, this is the most lucrative market that is ripe for exploitation; it is a market that governments, the IMF and World Bank are preparing for privatization and a means for capital accumulation. To make certain that privatization of water and sanitation proceed as planned, the World Bank, the International Finance Corporation, and USAID have spent billions of dollars in the last ten years around the world to achieve that goal.

Contrary to the reports from World Bank, US, and Western governments supporting privatization, will not solve the problem that millions of poor people face regarding clean water and sanitation problems. French-based SAUR, one of the largest water and sanitation companies in the world, admitted to the World Bank in 2002 that private water companies could not meet the needs of the world’s poor, given that the investment was too great to be recovered from low-income countries. SAUR demanded government subsidies and soft loans to continue privatization ventures in poor countries.

How do private companies secure soft loans and government subsidies? They make generous contributions to politicians legally and illegally. Both Suez and Vivendi have already been convicted for corruption in bribery and illegal donations to political parties in connection with projects in central Asia and Latin America. In cases where governments have tried to cancel contracts with multinational corporations, they have found that host governments of the multinational (US, UK, France) working together with the IMF and World Bank apply immense pressure to provide massive compensation. This was the case of Tanzania that canceled the contract of UK-based Biwater that did not do anything to improve the water supply as promised. By court order, Tanzanian taxpayers were required to pay $140 million to Biwater that had provided nothing to improve water services for the nation. Similar cases abound in Asia, Latin America and Africa.

Water privatization is an integral part of the larger issue of globalization under the neo-liberal model that the multilateral agencies like the World Bank are promoting as the panacea. Water is a way for capital accumulation by Western multinationals seeking to squeeze as much capital as possible using existing natural resources that they intend to continue commercializing. Given that the opportunities for squeezing profits from many poor countries are limited, multinationals with the help of western governments and the World Bank, are focusing on how to commercialize a product that nature freely provides, a product essential for sustaining life.

AUTHOR: Jon Kofas
URL: http://jonkofas.blogspot.com
E-MAIL: jonkofas [at] yahoo.com

This we could consider in terms of various institutional or governance functions, programme implementation and scientific research related aspects. And it includes three key sectors of-forestry, water and land management. But, on a broader frame itself we could not achieve much on all three aspects of institutional functions, programme implementation and on communicating science or research to mountain people in Himalayan region.

Let s talk about knowledge generation and strengthening aspects on various mountain ecosystem functions, and how much we have achieved in last 20 years. The fact is that, whatever information our scientific and research institutions, universities, and government agencies have in the region, often not shared and not accessible to the practitioners. The sharing mechanism is further constrained by poor communication strategies and forward linkages, to take it to mountain communities. Therefore, at times it appears so constrained that the region is data deficit on various cross cutting issues.

Also there is no mechanism in place through which one can facilitate the process of dialogue among scientists and policy makers, policy makers and practitioners and likewise. Our major challenge remained that how the scientific data is efficiently, timely and effectively communicated to the local communities.

In our view, in Himalayan region the governance system is not that effective, and it seems that various entrusted leading government, inter government and other institutions are not in catalyst role. For example, despite of the fact that ‘Sustaining Himalayan Ecosystem’ is among the eight laudable missions of Government of India in its National Action Plan for Climate Change (NAPCC) since 2009, there are hardly progressive efforts by government and international agencies in putting forward this important agenda on board.

Also, one can observe city development processes in most of the Himalayan countries, which is constrained by haphazard planning, poor infrastructure development and increased pollution. The public services in these mountainous countries fall short largely because they have little or no accountability to the ultimate clients, and outdated management systems are unable to provide the information needed for decision-making.

We are aware that, in Himalayan mountains there are massive plans of building several hundreds of dams for hydropower generation in next 20 years, which will generate 150,000 MW power in countries like India, Pakistan, Nepal and Bhutan. Given that, our governments, scientists and researchers are aware that the region is earthquake prone and there are various factors leading to water related disasters, no efforts are in place on developing and communicating scientific understanding to the affected communities.

We need to thoroughly review and internalize our achievements since 1992, on sustainable mountain development agenda!

Can’t we?

AUTHOR: K. N. Vajpai
URL: http://vajpai.org
E-MAIL: knvajpai [at] climatehimalaya.net

Extracting oil from tar sands release much more greenhouse gas (GHG) then conventional oil, making it Canada’s number-one source of GHGs. Alberta’s tar sands have also created massive toxic lakes that are so big they can be seen from space. More than half of Canada’s total footprint is a result of their carbon footprint, mostly due to fossil fuel use.

A study by the European Climate Change Commissioner recently found the average GHG intensity of fuel derived from tar sands to be 23 per cent higher than conventional fossil fuels. As a consequence, Europeans are considering imposing penalties or restricting the importation of oil derived from tar sands.

There was a time when Canada was an environmental leader, but under the current Conservative government, those day are long gone.

AUTHOR: Richard Matthews
URL: http://thegreenmarket.blogspot.com/
E-MAIL: smallbusinessconsultants [at] gmail.com

This year, Earth Hour, has garnered support from global companies and organisations as diverse as: Nokia, PwC, The Girl Scouts, FIFA, the International Olympic Committee, Canon, Baidu, Naver, National Geographic Channel Asia, Bloomberg, Starcom, Pocoyo, Clearchannel, Credit Suisse AG, Coca Cola, IKEA, Goldman Sachs, Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide, Hostel World and CB Richard Ellis.

Businesses are in a great position tothen take action. Businesses are contributing to the global pursuit of environmental betterment. Beyond turning off the lights of their premises between 8:30 and 9:30 on March 26, businesses are encouraging staff and customers to participate. Most importantly, businesses are encouraging efforts that go beyond the hour by implementing practices and offering services that enable staff and customers to make ongoing changes to reduce their impact on the planet.

Many businesses are communicating Earth Hour to their staff using emails, newsletters, posters, intranet, SMS, websites, staff associations and committees. This has encouraged staff, colleagues and their families to take part in Earth Hour.

Businesses are sharing their Earth Hour efforts with their other offices both nationally and globally. Some of the most responsible businesses are communicating their Earth Hour efforts with their partners, clients, suppliers and other networks.

Businesses are showing their support by including a link to the Earth Hour website, including a reference to Earth Hour in their communications (email, SMS bulletins, bills, statements, catalogues and other material). Businesses are also spreading the Earth Hour message through their facilities, stores, branches and products.

Here are some of the ways businesses are committing to cutting costs while reducing their impacts on the planet all year round:

• Turning off lights after hours in offices or installing motion-sensor lighting.
• Installing energy saving lights bulbs and devices (e.g. timers on lighting).
• Turning off printers, computers, monitors, microwaves and coffee machines at the power points at the end of the day when unused for long periods.
• Switching your business’ electricity to Gold Standard Green Power.
• Providing and encouraging staff to use recycling facilities.
• Involve your staff in everyday change. Elect Earth Hour Monitors for your business,whose job it is to ensure lights are out and appliances are off standby at the end of each working day.
• When communicating with tenants, customers, other offices and staff, make sure they are aware that your involvement in Earth Hour symbolises your commitment to go beyond the hour with an action that benefits the environment.

Businesses have registered their actions and are sharing their ongoing actions for the planet with the people of the world. With the help of the business community we can expect to see the biggest Earth Hour ever.

AUTHOR: Richard Matthews
URL: http://thegreenmarket.blogspot.com/
E-MAIL: smallbusinessconsultants [at] gmail.com