This morning I went on a march with La Via Campesina, the wonderful international peasant organization. Prior to the march, they released a press statement in which they set forth a sweeping critique of the current dysfunctional capitalist system:

La Via Campesina has called for mobilizations in Durban and around the world to demand a change of the entire capitalist system. The fight against climate change is a fight against neoliberal capitalism, landlessness, dispossession, hunger, poverty and inequality. The crisis of the planet requires that we take direct action. During the agro-ecology and food sovereignty day we will have public protest marches to the conference of the polluters, actions against multinational corporations like Monsanto undermining our seed sovereignty, which will culminate in a massive Assembly of the Oppressed to discuss ways of ending this unjust system.

Stirring and very brave words, these. Unfortunately they seem to be falling on largely deaf ears among both the global elites and the dominant NGO sector at the UN conference on climate change.

Despite this depressing background, the march was an amazing and completely uplifting experience. Here are some photos:

[slideshow]

The thing that makes the experience here in Durban so joyful and positive is the vibrant resistance culture that survives in South Africa. Only being present in the flesh can truly give one a sense of the electricity of being in the streets in Durban, but here are a few brief video clips that give a sense of this vibrancy. Check out the lyrics of this song, which explain why the singers are socialists:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ4krfe_eEs]

 

And here’s an amazing song about solidarity:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5qmOQvryyo]

 

During the march, the streets were turned into a political church, a theater of the spirit, by amazing choral singing. They also became a theater of resistance. Check out the gestures of defiance directed at our police escort:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNfpzTHYROU]

 

And here’s a taste of the power of song as we marched:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5XpxUDRSZs]

 

Finally, here’s an example of the famous toyi-toyi, which used to scare the hell out of the cops during the apartheid era:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Sg6gU3qGbg]

This morning I went on a march with La Via Campesina, the wonderful international peasant organization. Prior to the march, they released a press statement in which they set forth a sweeping critique of the current dysfunctional capitalist system:

La Via Campesina has called for mobilizations in Durban and around the world to demand a change of the entire capitalist system. The fight against climate change is a fight against neoliberal capitalism, landlessness, dispossession, hunger, poverty and inequality. The crisis of the planet requires that we take direct action. During the agro-ecology and food sovereignty day we will have public protest marches to the conference of the polluters, actions against multinational corporations like Monsanto undermining our seed sovereignty, which will culminate in a massive Assembly of the Oppressed to discuss ways of ending this unjust system.

Stirring and very brave words, these. Unfortunately they seem to be falling on largely deaf ears among both the global elites and the dominant NGO sector at the UN conference on climate change.

Despite this depressing background, the march was an amazing and completely uplifting experience. Here are some photos:

[slideshow]

The thing that makes the experience here in Durban so joyful and positive is the vibrant resistance culture that survives in South Africa. Only being present in the flesh can truly give one a sense of the electricity of being in the streets in Durban, but here are a few brief video clips that give a sense of this vibrancy. Check out the lyrics of this song, which explain why the singers are socialists:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ4krfe_eEs]

 

And here’s an amazing song about solidarity:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5qmOQvryyo]

 

During the march, the streets were turned into a political church, a theater of the spirit, by amazing choral singing. They also became a theater of resistance. Check out the gestures of defiance directed at our police escort:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNfpzTHYROU]

 

And here’s a taste of the power of song as we marched:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5XpxUDRSZs]

 

Finally, here’s an example of the famous toyi-toyi, which used to scare the hell out of the cops during the apartheid era:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Sg6gU3qGbg]

This afternoon I attended a panel about the Rights of Nature with some of the foremost international proponents of the notion:

  • Cormac Cullinan (lawyer and author of Wild Nature)
  • Shannon Biggs (lawyer and director of Community Rights Program at Global Exchange)
  • Tom Goldtooth (member of the Indigenous Environmental Network)
  • Natalia Greene (Ecuadorian activist and Political Program Coordinator at Fundacion Pachamam).

Cormac Cullinan: We have been so brought up to think that only people can have rights that the first thing we need to do is to “think the unthinkable” (Christopher Stone).  Either we humans think of ourselves as separate and superior, or we understand that we are part of Mother Earth and that our imaginations and all other aspects of our lives are deeply and irrevocably shaped by this living system called Earth. At the time that I wrote Wild Law, many regarded this as a wacky idea, despite the fact that most indigenous cultures around the planet believe in these ideas. The great contribution that Ecuador made was to legitimate the notion of Rights of Earth by incorporating them into their constitution. The discussion now shifted to whether it would work.

Today we need to find practical examples of how to implement this approach. Bolivia is following, as are some municipalities in the US. I want to touch on the political implications of this. There was a discussion two days ago led by Pablo Solon; it was really interesting to see people wrestling with these ideas. We’ve come to understand that you can’t have it both ways: either you see yourself in holistic terms as part of the system and that our world being is derived from the whole, and therefore maintaining the integrity and functioning of the whole is essential for our life being, or you view yourself as separate.

What we’re talking about here is a shift of Copernican magnitude. Of course this was initially resisted by authorities at the time. The Church made Galileo recant. Today we face a similar potential shift.

Shannon Biggs next discussed the obstacles to Rights for Nature: The biggest issue right now is that the law supports the rights of property owners. I’m working with a community in Pittsburgh which has used the Rights of Nature to prevent hydrofracking. What if our legal system saw us as a part of nature rather than above it. What prevents this is a sense of colonization. The people of Pittsburgh don’t want fracking in general, but a small number of people are getting their way in pushing it forward. When I work with communities, the biggest challenge I see is getting over the colonization of minds: people can’t believe that they can challlege and throw away laws. We need to provoke a change in this mindset. That’s 90% of the work we do in communities. 140 ordinances have been passed in communities around the US; the problem, though, is that although they’ve been passed, they haven’t been implemented.

Natalia Greene: At the moment we’re working with three communities in Ecuador. Each has been working on Rights of Nature for a long time. In a way, we’ve all been working for this for some time without using this framing. What the biggest obstacle we face? The notion that we have to develop. We need the money from development in order to fund education, health services, etc. So the greatest obstacle is our mindset. Another major obstacle is the legal profession, which has been taught that only people can have rights. But, in addition, we’re all part of this system – we’ve all ridden in a car powered by gasoline at some point.

In Ecuador, we’re also working with indicators in order to help figure out how to implement the idea. But perhaps the biggest problem is that we’re willing to see Nature as an object that can be turned into a commodity. This attitude is really shaping current discussions here in Durban. Nothing useful is going on in COP17. It’s civil society that is progressing in this regard. We need to find a way to bring us back together.

Cormac Cullinan: Cultures have always had ways to talking about something like rights. We need to decide whether we are going to keep this concept. The danger of jettisoning it is that it has gained significant traction on the international stage. There’s also a long history of Rights gaining traction in the US.  It’s a lot of more understandabe than many of the other ideas that circulate around the world.

Tom Goldtooth: A basic issue is the question of how we go about a process of cultural transformation. For example, as indigenous peoples we are confronted with Christianity’s concepts of dominion. We have to confront the way in which this concept of having dominion over the land has been incorporated into governance documents. Steve Newcombe’s Pagans in the Promised Land focuses on this issue, arguing that we have to confront our relationship to the sacred and remake this.

Cormac Cullinan: I agree that we have to change our mindset, but we also need to change the external systems that reward exploitative behavior. CEOs are working within companies, for example, that are organized according to legal systems that not only encourage but mandate exploitative behavior. This is why we need a rights based movement that is advocating a just and balanced relationship between our species and other beings.

Shannon Biggs: This is a struggle for justice against oppression. People’s movements such as the abolition movement have only ever won victories through concerted and united struggle.

We’re also honored to have Desmond D’sa here, who is Chairperson of both the Wentworth Development Forum and the South Durban Community Environmental Alliance. We all need to go to south Durban and stand in solidarity with Desmond and his community.

Desmond D’sa: Although we’ve got a progressive constitution in South Africa, we need to fight to make sure that Right of Nature gets incorporated. It’s also clear from this week that the people of the world have spoken, and that we are opposed to the destruction of Mother Earth. Let’s not lose the momentum and let’s not allow anyone to divide us.

To put some perspective on the passionate calls for systemic change that I’ve been detailing in this blog, an article just ran in the New York Times announcing that “global emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil-fuel burning jumped by the largest amount on record last year, upending the notion that the brief decline during the recession might persist through the recovery.” According to the article, this increase of 5.9% is the largest absolute increase in any year since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

To underscore the gravity of this situation, various scientific bodies have released reports emphasizing that the world has only a few years left to make significant cuts to prevent run-away climate change. As a recent article in The Guardian explains,

 

The United Nations Environment Programme’s Bridging the Emissions Gap report shows that, even if all countries implement their emissions targets for 2020 to their maximum extent, total emissions in that year will still exceed the level required to hold global warming to the UN’s 2C goal. Further action is needed now, it pointed out, if this emissions gap is to be closed. At the same time, the International Energy Agency warned that the world has only five years seriously to start replacing fossil fuels by low carbon energy and energy efficiency. Failure to make the required investment by 2017 would “lock in” high future emissions to such an extent that the 2C goal would become unattainable.

How are the elite negotiators meeting in downtown Durban at the IFCCC reacting to this situation? According to this same Guardian article, some delegates here at the UNFCCC are arguing that a new round of negotiations shouldn’t even begin until 2015, and that the targets implemented by such eventual talks shouldn’t kick in until after 2020.

There appear to be two main sides in the conflict here in Durban. On one side are the countries most vulnerable to climate change – the small islands and least developed nations – and the European Union. This group wants negotiations on a new legal agreement to begin next year, to conclude in 2015, and to enter into force as early as possible thereafter (the EU has said no later than 2020).

On the other side is an unlikely alliance of the usual developed country laggards – the US, Canad, Russia, and Japan– and two of the largest emerging economies, China and India. It is this side that is advocating that no new negotiations should start until after 2015 at the earliest.

Given this impasse, it’s very hard not to feel that we’re all truly fucked. Of course, the real question that then arises is who is gonna get fucked first and hardest. And that question is already evident on the ground. Last night, for example, I went down to the tent where the South African Rural Women’s Movement is holding its meetings. Large groups of women were sitting there on chairs in a bright white tent watching a film on a big screen tv. The film had interviews with rural leaders who details, in a sobering parade, how climate change is already making life far more difficult for farmers in the world’s poor nations. Far from being “least developed,” which of course implies a temporal lag, these people are inhabiting a future of climate change-driven scarcity, duress, and conflict that the rest of us in the overdeveloped nations will soon come to know.

If only the voices of people’s movements that surround me were to be heard in the air conditioned meeting halls of the UNFCCC. But their cries of alarm, along with the stern warnings of scientists around the world, are falling on deaf ears. And this seems to just the beginning of the holocaust that is about to enfold the planet.

This panel was hosted by RIGAS, the Italian Network for Environmental and Social Justice. They believe that there is a real need for discussion among the various different social networks in order to work together to get out of the present crisis.

Three speakers will present: Ivonne Yanez of Acción Ecológica; Lea; Trevor Ngwane, founder of the Soweto Electricity Crisis Committee; Guiseppe de Riga of A Sud (Italy); Rafael Quispe ; Nnimo Basi.

Initial questions: how can we build a new theory bringing together social and enviornmental justice with the objective of creating a new society; how can we build a social movement capable of having impact on the present crisis.

Trevor Ngwane spoke first. He began by explaining that we can only win through solidarity as the only way forward. In this sense, the Occupy Wall Street slogan “We are the 99% resonates.” The anti-apartheid struggle was won through unity of COSATU, the union movement, with UDF, the united democratic front. But more than that, the anti-apartheid movement was an international movement. In the liberated South Africa, we find we face many of the same problems of the apartheid era: the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. In Soweto, after independence, we faced the problem of the commodification of electricity, with the government increasing prices and cutting people off in order to enforce payment. So we acted collectively, but we also engaged in direct action – we reconnected ourselves when they cut us off. There was a similar struggle with water, with the government installing pre-payment meters before we can get access to water. The response was to remove these meters and let the water flow.

We then generalized this under the slogan, “Free basic services for all.” This makes sense to us since many people are unemployed in South Africa. Many of those who work don’t get a living wage because of casualization of labor. Even this university is cleaned by outsourced workers, many of whom will lose their jobs at the end of this month because their contract is ending.

In many other townships in South Africa, you have “service delivery protests.” Township residents burn tires in the road, burn the major’s car and house. These same protests are happening all over South Africa, but the problem is that they are happening in isolation. People’s protests are intended to make them the first ones to receive services. These acts ARE radical, but they also eat away the foundations of solidarity. We also have big strike waves, and particularly in 2010, with the biggest public strikes in our nation’s history. But the tendency is for isolated struggle rather than solidarity. The violence in the strikes compensates for a weakness in solidarity.

We realize, though, that while we call for basic services for all, we don’t want that at the cost of Mother Earth. So we want a shift away from electricity delivered from coal-fired power plants. We therefore feel like we want to link up with environmental movements. We are the reds, and we want to link up with the greens. We also realize that we have to work with the trade unions because we need help to build houses and deliver services for other people.

We were once part of the anti-privatization forum, but it died. The movements that last longest are those with a broad rather than a narrow vision. This is because sometimes the government will buy you off. For example, the government in Johannesburg attempted to stop us by putting a moratorium on cut-offs; luckily we were able to broaden our vision to other issues like education.

Ivonne Yanez was up next. She began by saying that in order to think about the present moment we need to look over our history. In the global North, for example, struggles over land have been important. The struggle over the Tar Sands is partly about land, for example. Another example could be the struggle over labor. In the global South, struggles have been a bit different. Most of all, they have centered on attempts to preserve collective rights. In addition, they have also hinged on anti-imperialism.

Despite a history of misunderstandings, we have found ways to link up movements between global North and South. For example, Accíon Ecológica left Friends of the Earth in 2003 because we felt our struggle was different. But conditions seem different now. We see a huge concentration of power in the 1%. New hegemonies, including the rise of China and Brazil and the other BRIC countries.

What is the context in Latin America? We have socialist governments that are supposedly leaving “the long night of neoliberalism.” But these are still capitalist governments in basic ways. In addition, these countries are more or less continuing to perpetuate continuing degradation of the environment.

We’re also seeing novel social movements emerge, such as the Spanish indignados. In South Africa, the social movements are very strong, but are not articulated to one another and therefore are fighting alone.

So the main point is that we have to find common basic points in order to build an international movement. I don’t believe that climate change should be the thing that is going to unite us. I think that water will unite us. Struggles against shale gas in the US are fundamentally about water, just as struggles for pure water are fundamentally what is at stake in Ecuador. We need to make sure that progress in one area of the world doesn’t come at the expense of people in other parts of the world.

Another common issue is energy. Many of us are fighting to gain access to energy and prevent it remaining in a few hands. Fossil fuels could be a basis for common struggle. For example, I recently received an email from someone in the Occupy Wall Street movement asking about the Yasunization of the world.

Another issue is “climate jobs.” What is a climate job? A South African building solar panels with technology from South Africa and materials from China for a family in Denmark. We need to think this through carefully.

Finally, I want to finish with the notion of the Rights of Nature. As an Ecuadorian, I’m extremely proud that this right is recognized in our constitution. But is it a good idea to have a global coalition around such rights? Perhaps jumping layers could destroy a good cause. The notion of Rights of Nature is one of the most radical concepts of the last 500 years, but if we don’t understand in our communities what these rights are, we may end up in competition rather than solidarity. We need to use this concept to confront capitalism, to confront “ecosystem services,” to confront the Clean Development Mechanism.  Only then will we be able to have an international network, one that will be protected by local communities.

Maybe one other platform could be criminalization. All over the world, more and more people who are struggling against economic and ecological harms are being criminalized.

Finally, it seems to me that our struggle needs to be based on compromise and mutual respect.

Leah Temper of the Autonomous University of Barcelona, who works on ecological economics. Arguing for a more activist science. We coordinate EJOLT, a science and society program funded by the EU. What can ecological economics provide to the struggle for environmental justice. Need to put political issues back inside political economy by situating struggles over environmental issues into relation with broader social struggles. Challenging, for example, the argument that in the North we are decoupling development from environmental degradation. This is totally false: exploitation of resources is simply being displaced to other countries. We analyze material energy flows in order to challenge new governance structures associated with new carbon flows. So we look at human appropriation of primary production in order to understand how biofuel directives in the EU are linked to land grabbing in the global South.

What kind of global movement can we create? At AUB, we argue for a degrowth economy. What we want to degrow are the material and energy throughputs of the economy. This involves rethinking work and returning to the commons, a re-commoning of many resources, both on the side of production and consumption. This isn’t about individual consumption decisions, but rather structural transformation of the economy. Our biggest allies are the environmental justice movements taking place in the South. Our biggest challenge is how to make links with these movements. Key here is fighting enclosures taking place in the South because of our consumption in the North.

Guiseppe de Riga of A Sud. The first thing we need to do to build a new social movement is to meditate on the crisis we face. This is a truly unique structural crisis that encompasses all aspects of the system: energy, food, economy, politics. We are not going to overcome this crisis with empty slogans or old simplistic nostrums. In order to build a new international movement we mustn’t separate radical or reformist movement, but rather engage with our specific struggles. There are three major issues to confront: the system of production, means of subsistence, and the patterns of consumption.  All over the world we are facing these three issues: environmental crimes, environmental refugees, etc. What we’re saying is that we need to develop a new model of human liberation. It’s not an issue of climate justice or social justice but democracy – that’s the main core issue of it.

Here’s an example of how democracy is at stake in this issue. We’ve all witnessed the failure of global governance in face of climate change. In Italy, we won a major victory in a referendum against the privatization of water services. We were not supported by any political parties, but rather used constitutional tools to stop the privatization of water. But it didn’t turn out this way. The results of the referendum were never applied. So what should we do now that we see that democracy doesn’t work? What is the point of all this? So the point of all this is how we can create a form of democracy that can involve all citizens. After all, are we here in Durban just as witnesses, or are we going to change the relations of power?

This means that participatory democracy needs to be part of our daily practice. This will allow us to build new languages, new forms of political practice. We also need to transform the energy system and the production system, which means its essential to talk to workers. This process may produce contradictions, but we cannot be dissuaded by such difficulties. We need to have unity in diversity.

To close, many European newspapers stress that productive forces need to hurry up because we don’t have any time. But we also have no time because we live in a society in which everything happens at the speed of light.

Nnimmo Bassey of the International Oil Watch Movement. Good evening. I’ve been yelling “leave the oil in the soil, etc.” all day, and when I got out of the cab, the driver told me to “leave the change in the cab.” We have leaders here in Durban who are nothing more than carbon speculators. So we have all these false solutions receiving the attention of global leaders (or non-leaders). So this critical issue of wealth creation without production, and continuing dispossession of workers, is fundamental for us. It means we need to challenge power frontally. As Bob Marley said, a hungry man is an angry man. Most of the people who go to bed hungry are farmers. Most of these farmers are women. They are forced to sell whatever they produce to pay for other things. So the farmers are organizing to challenge the fat cats who are gaining from farming.

What are we going to do? The Climate Justice Movement must expand its scope. We need to bring all sectors of labor into the movement, because labor will be able to challenge industry. Labor is now really ready to push for a transition away from dirty energy. This is an opportunity we have to make a shift to a new planet.

Raffael Quispe, a Bolivian indigenous leader with CONAMAQ was next, talked about President Evo Morales’s plan to construct a highway through the Amazonian rainforest. There’s a global economic and ecological crisis, a structural crisis of the capitalist model. Today it’s the emerging economies that are the new pro-capitalists, where the new extractive economy is taking hold. Before it was the big oil companies that were extracting oil from our territories, but now it’s quasi-governmental companies that are doing this. The way forward is to create a new global alliance between social movements and social groups. I’ve been to all the COPs – they’re just a distraction. The only thing being talked about there is commodification and how the elites can make money off environmental destruction.  The same thing will happen here. There will be no binding agreements for emissions reductions. So civil society and the social movements need to join together and fight to change the system.

Vilma Mazza of Ya Basta! We’re living through a time of systemic crisis of capitalism. It’s a different phase, as the near total collapse of the Euro suggests. The dictatorship of finance capital is stronger than ever. People wake up to listen to the radio not to get news about the weather but about the market, which is more unstable than the weather. This suggests that we mustn’t just adjust the system but rather transform it. All the mediations that capital put into place before – welfare etc – has been dismantled. All that’s left is the violence of capital. So we need to build a sweeping alternative. We can’t keep carrying on in the same way.

The session ended with a series of Questions and Answers that explored the limits to contemporary trannsformative movements.

Leah Temper mentioned that she has a movie dealing with degrowth.  Here it is:

[vimeo http://vimeo.com/10871269]

Winnie Overbeck, Coordinator of the World Rainforest Movement, begins this presentation on Fake Forests. He was introduced by Wally Menne of Timberwatch. Winnie, he told us, is going to explain why we oppose industrial tree monocultures.

My organization was founded 25 years ago by a group of organizations concerned about policies for “forest preservation” established by World Bank. In the 1980s, the WB sponsored reforestation plans using eucalyptus trees on community lands. Communities began complaining that these plantations were causing many problems for them. Since then, we’ve been researching these issues with the aim of helping communities and forest-dependent people to secure their livelihoods against different threats, including plantations, mining, roads, and industrial agriculture.

In 1999, we launch a permanent campaign against tree plantations. Communities around the world are losing their livelihoods to industrial plantations such as pulp and rubber companies in various parts of Latin America, southeast Asia, and Africa. And there’s a new trend during the last few years: oil-palm plantations that supposedly save the climate by storing CO2 in the trees, which are then cut down to be used as biofuel.

Industrial tree monoculture plantations have been promoted by the FAO (international organization for agriculture), and by governments, as forests. Eucalyptus trees in Thailand are called “the selfish tree,” because it sucks up all the local water. In Chile, such trees are called “planted soldiers” because fascist dictatorship gave indigenous peoples’ lands to developers. In Brazil, they call such plantations “the green desert,” because there is no life inside them. In South Africa, people call them “green cancer,” because they’re invasive and destructive of the soil. They’re a dead forest that kills everything.

Another reason to do these campaigns is because plantations are symbolic of the destructive and unjust character of the present capitalist development model being imposed on people around the world. These plantations are based on continuous development, maximum profits, and are an integral part of the “false solutions” for the climate crisis.

Figures on paper consumption. Globally, we use 54 kg/person/year. But in Finland, each person uses 324 kg/year, while in Brazil the average person uses 35 kg, in Vietnam 15 kg/year, and in Cameroon people use only 3 kg/year. But Finland and Vietnam are equally literate, so it’s not a result of inequalities in education.

Paper consumption increased 5x in the past 50 years. In the USA, 50% of the population never read a book again after leaving school. Half of the paper consumption in the world is for wrapping paper, so it’s linked to the global unsustainable commodity chains. Only 15% of paper products are actually bought by people in that form.

How to support this campaign? We support local struggles through information spreading, exchange, case studies on specific impacts; we engage in a permanent campaign with the FAO to change their official forest definition; we struggle against greenwash mechanisms such as FSC, Corporate Social “Responsibility”, ‘new generation’ plantations) and false solutions to the climate crisis using plantations.

September 21st is International Day of Struggle against Industrial Tree Monocultures.  It was created in Brazil in 2004 by communities struggling against plantation companies.

Next up, Carlo Joavin from La Via Campesina is going to talk about the impact of industrial timber monocultures on peasant communities in Mozambique. I’ve come to experience my experience about monocultures in Mozambique. I’d like to take this opportunity to talk about a company which is going to open production in Mozambique, but which didn’t fulfill promises it’d made to members of communities. This will make problems because people will no longer be able to harvest forest resources. As an organization we’re trying to negotiate with the government to prevent opening of this facility.

Then Simone Lovera of the Global Forest Coalition talked about false definitions. The definition of forests has had a large impact on the model of forestry developed in Europe and then exported to the rest of the world through development policies that promote top-down approaches that impose capitalist, corporate-driven, neoliberal approaches on local communities in the name of “aid” and “capacity building.” I’m from a part of the Netherlands that is filled with tree plantations, which are called “forests.” In many other parts of Europe, the practice is to clear-cut trees and then plant monocultural plantations.

In the case of the plantation near my house, the practice of clear cutting began in the 1850s. Clear cutting was not just related to farming, but also to a massive military industry that built ships, including ones used to bring slaves to the New World, and mining, which needed lots of wood. In Europe, tree plantations were planted on territory occupied by marginalized peoples, who had often been pushed off rich lands by large landowners and left in degraded, sandy areas. These people used the “marginal” lands in a whole variety of ways for sustenance. Once the plantations began moving in, people were cleared off because they often didn’t have land titles. The rest of these people were pushed off simply because tree plantations destroy work: once planted, there is nothing more to do. As people left, shops and schools closed down until entire communities had disappeared.

Since the 1970s, there has been increasing awareness of the need for biodiversity in forests, with the result that many plantations are regenerating into biodiverse forests. But this process is extremely difficult because the main plantations in Europe are pine plantations, which very other species can live amongst. So to restore trees, the pines have to be cut down.

The FAO and climate negotiators from the North do not want to distinguish between real forests and fake forests (aka plantations). We keep getting the argument from Northern foresters that you cannot distinguish between plantations and forests. These are all Northern-driven processes. The definition adopted by Parties to the Kyoto Protocol for LULUCF is based on how many trees you have per hectare and how high they can get. This explicitly includes plantations and part of land that have been clear-cut. According to this treaty, it’s not clear if an oil-palm plantation is a forest or not. LULUCF allows European governments not to cut their carbon emissions but just to grow tree plantations and thereby solve climate change.

This battle caries forward in UNFCCC and also on national level. Everyone needs to pitch in to latter. We already have a clear definition of forest. We have to resist moneys being disbursed to countries to develop fake forests. La vida no se vende!

Tom Goldtooth spoke next on the impact of monocultural tree plantations on people’s cultures. As indigenous peoples, in 1990 we were facing an onslaught of government-driven initiatives that led to toxic waste coming out of the ground. But before this, extractive industries were allowed onto our lands. One of our biggest issues has been deforestation in both the U.S. and Canada. There are often no protection mechanisms strong enough to stop logging and mining. We’re experiencing this issue in Alberta, where the boreal forests are being clearcut for Tar Sands production.

Clear cutting has been the policy of the US government for 100 years. But we need to look even further back to the arrival of the Puritans in the 1600s. Our analysis was that the voyage of Columbus and subsequent colonial ventures were part of a business scheme to extract lumber.

How did this affect us as an indigenous people? Gradually colonists moved West, pursuing a policy of clear cutting until they hit the prairie lands. The settlers needed timber for houses, railroads, etc. The result was devastation of trees. In the region of northern Minnesota where I live, the rivers and lakes were flooded with cut timber, which choked off fish populations and left our people with no food since we were dependent on the natural food system.

We had huge biodiversity in this period: birch, aspens, spruce, pine, cedar, etc. The latter were used for ceremonial purposes, but they and others were wiped out to build homes and other forms of culture for settlers. When the forests were clear cut, the soil and water temperature went up, causing more deaths of fish. The chemicals that come out of pulp mills are also a health risk to my people.

As Native people, we have a relationship to the environment. Many of my people have totemic relationships through clans to animals in the area like bears, eagles, martins, otters. Clear cutting pushes bear families back into areas that haven’t been clear cut, leading to decimation of bear populations in my area, leading to garbage bears. Tribes connected to the birds have seen that plantations are greatly diminishing bird populations.

All of this adds up to increasing difficulty in maintaining our cultures. We face a long history of attempts to destroy our culture. The shift from clear-cut to select-cut is only beginning now.

As the trees disappear, we say that there are no more elders, no more old growth trees. Link between this change and depression and suicide among Native American peoples.

During the panel, the organizers also distributed a copy of an editorial published in The Guardian by Kenyan Nobel laureate Wangari Maathai shortly before her death. In this editorial, Maathai argued that the terrible drought of 2011 in East Africa is related to the loss of intact forests, which help to stabilize local climates and secure the livelihoods of Africa’s farmers, herders, and entrepreneurs. Maathai explicitly challenged the REDD+ initiative to plant exotic trees at the expense of indigenous forests.

Today was the Global Day of Action against the UN COP17. Here in Durban, a large and very spirited crowd wound through the city towards the site of COP17 negotiations. Here are photos of the day, all of them mine except the first two, which are by Maxim Combes.

[slideshow]

I hope that these photos convey the jubilant atmosphere of the march. What made it particularly special for me was the animation introduced by South African resistance traditions. As the photos show, large groups of young people danced the famous anti-apartheid toyi-toyi dance and sang acapella resistance songs as we marched towards the Durban convention center.

The jubilant air of resistance I felt throughout the march needs to be reality checked, however, by the rather hopeless occasion for the march. At the end of the march, Christina Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, emerged to address the crowd. She had virtually nothing significant to say. Vague promises that the messages of civil society will be taken back to delegates (along with a mention of the business community as another stakeholder) are an implicit refusal to commit to taking any kind of concrete action.

It also needs to be added that, as far as I’m aware, no militantly disruptive protest – including nonviolent direction action – was taken during the march. Business as usual prevailed. This might be alright if we had more time and could see this march as part of a process of gradually building a movement that will sway larger and larger segments of public opinion and eventually force global elites to shift humanity away from its current path towards collective suicide. But we simply don’t have that kind of time.

I’m really concerned that global elites have learned how to isolate themselves skillfully inside their barricaded conference rooms. They’re making absolutely sure that no shut-down along the lines of the WTO protests in Seattle ever happens again. So even in a country with amazing traditions of political resistance such as South Africa, protest can be made into nothing more than a species of carnival, colorful but harmless.

It’ll be interesting to hear other people’s assessments of the day of action tomorrow.

Kamoji Wachiira (Kenyan-born senior fellow with the Canadian International Development Agency) presented this evening on contemporary land grabs.

According to Wachiira, it is estimated that an area the size of Europe has now been grabbed in Africa by external countries or corporations. This trend is accelerating rapidly, driven not just by donor agencies but hedge funds, which are treating land as a possible derivative salable in the future on commodity markets, as well as to sit idly and speculate on.

The unfairness of this land grab is transparent. People are simply displaced from their land, with no consultation. Issues of food security are a clear result, with possible famine in these lands because all the production being done is in non-edible things like flowers (Kenya) or biofuels (Indonesia). Another impact is accelerated rates of environmental degradation.

Social movements in places like Uganda and Ethiopia have been very effective in educating civil society about these land grabs. This has started in places such as southern Sudan, where a new country was created and immediately found itself one of the world’s most well endowed sites in terms of water resources. Oxfam recently released a study that documents the displacement of roughly 25,000 people in Southern Sudan as a result of land grabs by a London-based corporation named the New Forests Company.

In Land Grabs, you don’t need to import virtual water (the water needed to produce a commodity – a concept invented by Professor Anthony Allen), but you actually grab the land and control it. Resources thus flow to the wealthy. The dynamics differ in each country, but the underlying pattern is the same as a result of the global capitalist system. For example, China is not going to come and take South African land, but it will take land in Sudan.

Q from Patrick Bond: can you connect the civil war in Sudan to the concept of climate refugees (as Alex de Waal does)? This refugee problem becomes the source of xenophobia in places like South Africa. Perhaps the most fierce resistance is in the Mt. Elgon area in Uganda to the Danish REDD project.

Q from me on whether he knows Christian Parenti’s book Tropic of Chaos, which talks about these kinds of conflicts in terms of the convergence of triple catastrophe: Cold War flooding of areas with arms and conflict, neoliberal structural adjustment programs, and climate change. Result is conflict around resources that imperial powers like the U.S. represent as racialized ethnic strife, which leads to military solutions that further inflame conflict. Wachiira responds that exactly this is happening in horn of Africa, with U.S. now sending 500 military advisers into Kenya to deal with conflict with Somalia. The argument is that Al Qaeda is present in the horn of Africa and so U.S. must intervene.

REDD stands for the United Nations Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries. The idea is that forest-dwelling peoples around the world will be paid not to cut down their habitats. Where will this money come from? There’s the rub. In most cases it will come in the form of “offsets” from polluting industries in the global North. The resemblance to the medieval Catholic system of pardons is striking: you sin, and then you pay to have your sin forgiven. But in this case the scenario is infinitely more corrupt, since these environmental pardons also often involve preventing forest-dwelling peoples continuing to access their land.  It’s essentially one of the most vast schemes of what Marx called primitive accumulation ever developed.

The REDD Teach-In was introduced by Tom Goldtooth of the Indigenous Environmental Network:

When IEN first began working on these issues they very quickly realized that they needed to form links with people in the global South because when they pushed out a refinery or a toxic waste facility in the US, the facility very quickly just moved to the South.

We are taking responsibility for moving to an alternative towards a more sustainable model in the U.S., but we’re also interested in linking up with our brothers and sisters in the global South.  We’re also part of the Durban Group, a formation that emerged in early 2000s to strategize on how to confront the UN’s emerging attempt to use carbon markets to make money. Our discussions anticipated the Clean Development Mechanism, and we released a statement condemning use of carbon offsets. One of the groups that met with us was Carbon Trade Watch, which helps challenge this new regime – backed by financial institutions and governments of the North. A lot of governments don’t like what we do because they are invested in financial speculation that is directly linked to the carbon market.

After this introduction by Goldtooth, we broke into small groups and did a very North American workshop.  First we introduced ourselves and talked about our favorite color and fruit.  Then we each were given keywords linked to REDD and asked to define them.  The point of this was to see what kinds of associations people have with the central terms being used in REDD discourse. The group leader then mentioned that these keywords are defined in two recently published pamphlets.

Next we heard a speaker from Brazil talk about a particular REDD project:

This project was based in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The company buying the carbon credits is the Disney Company, and the company selling them is Conservation International, a big American NGO. The project is based in eastern Congo, an area that has been wracked by civil war. You arrive there and find that conservationists have been struggling to save gorrillas, and protecting the forest in order to do so. They tried to do this by creating what they call a “community reserve.” Sounds good, right? A place for the community? But what it is really is a national park in which the guarding duty has been pawned off to the local people. We saw that there are many communities outside the border of the park, with some small development projects to help communities. The Diane Fossey organization had backed this, and people were relatively happy. But then Conservation International arrived. REDD, we discovered, was about taking people out of the park because they disturb the forest. And the local people are now totally against REDD, because it displaces them from their land. We interviewed people and found that they are totally opposed to this project.

We then played a role playing game. The scenario: Conservation International is setting up a REDD project that will offset pollution from a refinery based on a poor community of color in California with a tree plantation in Chiapas. We each drew lots and then played out the roles. I was the project developer. There was also an NGO head supporting the project, a government representative, a California mother and youth, and a community leader from Chiapas. The scenario played out as one would expect, with the first three supporting the project through various forms of sophistry, and the latter three opposing it by pointing out that it would have many negative impacts on their communities. The most exciting moment of the role play came when the youths from Chiapas and California began talking to one another about their experiences of resistance. Other scenarios include the following:

1) You are from a community on the island of Sumatra, Indonesia. You live near a REDD forest that is protected and you can no longer enter it. You found out that the government is selling concessions to a coal mining company in the REDD territory. What do you do?

2) You are part of a REDD project in Brazil. A major US oil company has come out to set up the REDD project in your foreste and offered you all jobs and money but you won’t be able to use the forest any longer and you will have to travel a long distance to receive the money. What do you do?

3) You are part of a REDD project based in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The project is being set up by a major international conservation organization that plans to keep people from entering their forests so they can sell REDD credits on the voluntary carbon market. What do you do?

The conclusion of the teach-in featured a number of speakers giving discussions of concrete examples of REDD. One woman talked about the use of REDD as a strategy for counter-insurgency. Other impacts of REDD include land grabs, a new form of colonialism, servitude and semi-slavery, evictions, huge plantations, threats to cultural survival, and corporate greenwashing.

We’ve heard about conservation refugees. Now we’re on the dawn of the era of REDD refugees. Examples of people who have been placed in this position include the Ogiek refugees in Kenya. Shell is bankrolling REDD projects in places like Indonesia. BP doing REDD in Bolivia, while Chevron-Texaco has a REDD project in Brazil. In Uganda, more than 22,000 people were evicted a month ago in Uganda for a REDD project.

REDD = final phase in colonization of Africa. But all over the world people are saying No REDD.

Concluding remarks by Tom Goldtooth:

Those of you have followed UNFCCC know that it’s been hard to stop REDD on the inside. It seems like it’s a juggernaut that we can’t halt. Even though people see the contradictions, they feel like they have to sign up because the process is inevitable and at least they’ll get some sort of money. We indigenous people know that anytime someone comes and promises money, it’s very hard to resist: we’re dealing with a situation of dire poverty. Part of our strategy for this COP is to continue to educate and inform civil society, because many people in forest communities don’t yet know what’s at stake in REDD. We’re working with organizations like Timberwatch which have been steady in this situation. We’re going to continue to work on grassroots organizations to explain that this could end up being the largest land grab in the history of humanity. Those of you who work on biodiversity know that REDD is also going to affect your communities. In Nagoa, Japan, a decision was made last year that affects Intellectual Property, leading to privatization of our community knowledge. Now corporations can buy any knowledge, and they know that we’re vulnerable because of our poverty. And they have help from NGOs like the Environmental Defense Fund, which give lots of money to people to support REDD.

We need to tell negotiators here at Durban that the language needs to be stronger – free, prior, and informed consent needs to be part of the treaty. And people have to have the right to say no. And if the countries don’t agree to this, we’re going to ask for a moratorium to any further implementation of REDD. We have to make a stand. That’s why we’re demanding things now, rather than being on our knees. We’re telling our brothers and sisters that we are saying NO to REDD, no to colonialism, no to capitalism. I’m telling you this now because top NGOs and environmental organizations are already invested in supporting REDD; they tell us there is no alternative to REDD. But we have many publications that explain what to do. It doesn’t take money to save the trees; in fact, money has been the cause of the destruction of forests. What we really need are real solutions, systemic change not climate change.

The day’s activities began with a Climate Justice Tribunal. The model here, of course, is the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which became a model for conciliatory justice after hearings in the transition to democracy during the mid-1990s in South Africa.

Panelists, who will listen to testimony and then write up a report: Ivonne Yanis (of Accion Ecologica in Ecuador), Jacklyn Cock (Professor of Sociology at Witz University), Lidy Nacpil (Jubilee South), Rebecca Sommer (Climate Justice Now Movement).

Vishwas Satgar introduces the importance of the CJ Tribunal. We wanted to have this platform for 4 broad reasons:

1) Consequences. Climate change is a global issue with global consequences. Coming into COP17, the IFCC published a report about emerging extreme weather patterns. We need to record impact of climate change around the world.

2) Criminality. Cochabamba Declaration gave us an important weapon in the notion of the Rights of Nature. Liberal ideas of human rights are very narrow, focusing on rights of the individual. But corporations trump individuals, they even trump the rights of nations today. We need to think about the rights of nature in more concrete ways.

3) Alternatives. We’d like you to point us towards a way forward. CJ movement is helping to advance a whole series of alternative ways of life.

4) Mass tactics. We want to use this space to have some discussion about mass tactics. We want to talk about mass tactics around COP17. How do we take these concerns and the agenda that comes out of them into the wider political space. We want . We’ll be joining the Occupy Movement at Speaker’s Corner today. But we want to broaden this struggle.

People’s names are often hard to record. Almost every South African speaker began with cries of “Amandla! [Power] – Awethu [To us]!”

Florence Durrant, who left SA during apartheid era, spoke first. I come home to SA and see increasing poverty and wonder what we fought for during apartheid era. I’m here with the Million Climate Jobs Campaign, part of the global Campaign Against Climate Change. Poverty is not just located here in SA. In the UK where I live now people are struggling. We need good, climate friendly jobs around the world.

Tebo from Soweto Electricity Crisis Committee. Climate change is a serious killer for us. Climate change has been created by capitalists and big companies. We have to stand up to them and show them that we are against what they’re doing. Our struggle is against the high costs of electricity. We used to connect illegally, but the police disconnect us.

Kandi from the Indigenous Environmental Network in the US. People around the world think that everything is great in the US, but for many people in the US that’s not true. On many reservations, people don’t have access to any electricity, although they power lines go right over their territory. Our latest struggle is with hydrofracking. The latest tragedy was a young couple who were killed by a semi-tractor trailer that was involved in hydrofracking on a reservation. And nothing happened to the driver. And the government can take our land anytime they want to using eminent domain. I’ve been on the inside at COP17 and there’s a lot of bullshit going on in there. We have a connection to the land that those negotiators don’t. We lived on our land for thousands of years and then the colonizers came and took our land, telling us they could do things better, and then in 200 years they F’ed everything up. Those rich people, where do they think they’re going to go – Mars? We need to rise up and show them what to do. I’m not crying because I’m sad, I’m crying because I’m mad.

Next up, a woman who didn’t give her name but identified the platinum mining companies that are poisoning the waters of the Limpopo river that she and her people are using. The company is hiring people through the traditional leaders, dividing the community. In reaction, we’re calling for the mine to leave the minerals underground.

Nondla from Eastern Cape, whose community is struggling against a mining company. The government has given this company open-cast mining rights for titanium without consulting the community. It’s going to leave us with a desert area. We’re asking all of you to come to support us. This year the government withdrew mining rights from the company (Mineral Resource Commodities), but then gave the company another 90 days to apply for rights. We discovered that in South Africa you need to fight to get information. The land doesn’t belong to us, we belong to the land.  The government has promised the people jobs if they agree to this development, but we want to know why we need to give up our land to get jobs.

Comment by Ivonne: there’s a very strong relation between mining and climate change. People fighting against such mines are fighting climate change. We’d like testimony to make links between struggles and climate change clear.

Wendy from Kalimandam in Indonesia talking about the negative impact of REDD+. She talked about how her community was negatively impacted by projects supported by REDD+.

Christian Adams of Western Cape Fishing Industry. We come face to face with climate change on a daily basis. The government policy only looked at industrial fishing and sport fishing, not small fisherpeople. To the government it was just about making money. Our message to our government is to place people before profits. Stop the industrialized fishing now. No fish, no eat, no sea, no life.

Question from panelist: who said there are many effects of climate change.  Can you give us an example?  Yes, one of our comrades named Peter Kluitie died because his boat was turned over by a freak wave. Another example is a weapons manufacturing company that tests weapons for foreign companies (intelligent bunker-busting bombs) in our waters; local fishermen who have species-specific fishing find that those fish are no longer there because the seasons are changing.

Simon from the Vaal Environmental Justice organization. We are suffering from asthma and many other respiratory diseases as a result of power stations like SASOL 1. These companies come using scientific language which we cannot understand, and use that language to steal our land. We’ve had enough of these companies; they need to be called into order. Together we will triumph.

An indigenous woman from India who talked about the fight of indigenous people to protect their lands against the World Bank and industry. Poor states like Orissa and Jharkand in India are involved in struggles against displacement because multinational companies are trying to take over the land. When people are displaced, they lose everything: their culture, their identity. After these years of bitter experience, we have gathered together with the decision not to give any of our land. Our motto is “no more displacement.” If we want to survive, we have to fight. Now the government is starting operation “green hunter” to kill the Maoists, but green is the color of our land. People’s movements are strong, so the government has arrested our leaders. But we have promised we’ll never give our land to multinational companies. We’re not opposed to development, but only on our terms. We want climate justice.

Tenzin Woebum & Tenzin Dolma reported about how climate change is affecting the Tibetan plateau. We’re here to be a voice for our voiceless brothers and sisters in Tibet, they said. Since we don’t have independence there’s huge pressure from the Chinese government to keep environmental problems quiet. We call Tibet the third pole, because we have 46,000 glaciers on our plateau, but now these glaciers are melting, causing problems not just in Tibet but in surrounding countries like Bangladesh, Pakistan, etc. Our glaciers are feeding hundreds of millions of people in Southeast Asia. 20% of glaciers have retreated over last decades. Tibetan pastoral nomads are being removed from their lands and sent to ghetto-style houses, blamed for degrading their land despite the fact that the destruction of their environment is due to climate change.

Miguel from Jubilee South presented on Thyssen Krupp steel company that was opened in a favela in Rio de Janiero. This has increased carbon emissions and respiratory diseases by a huge amount. Any attempt to resist this has been killed by the mafia hired by the steel company to protect their development. The leader of the local fishermen who were displaced is now living under the protection of the national witness program. Why do people keep resisting? Because the violations are there despite attempts to silence people.

The final speaker discussed the Khoisan people, who haven’t, he argued, been addressed in COP17. Northern Cape lands are filled with mining companies that are trying to push indigenous people off the land. Shell fracking issue also now affecting San people, who no longer have access to traditional botanicals. These herbal medicines are being taken from them by bioprospecting companies. Tribute to Khoisan X who has been fighting for the Khoisan people. The Khoisan people are nomadic, and so they don’t use houses the way the government expects them to do.

It was often hard to understand the speakers, and sometimes it was difficult to glean particular details of specific grievances as the Tribunal intended to do. But what came across powerfully despite linguistic difficulties was the sense of wounding and anger felt by people. The overwhelming emotion was powerful in the room. People also seemed to feel incredibly validated by being able to tell their stories in public.

While I’m collecting testimony, there’s a list of very useful interviews around COP17 and Climate Justice available on the Ecosocialist Horizons website.