Ecuadorean tribe will 'die fighting' to defend rainforest

Jonathan Watts in the Guardian (UK): Ecuador's Yasuni national park – seen by many as the most biodiverse place on Earth – is at risk from rising extinction rates globally and local economic pressures to exploit the oil beneath the forest Link to this video In what looks set to be one of the most one-sided struggles in the history of Amazon forest conservation, an indigenous community of about 400 villagers is preparing to resist the Ecuadorean army and one of the biggest oil companies in South America.

The Kichwa tribe on Sani Isla, who were using blowpipes two generations ago, said they are ready to fight to the death to protect their territory, which covers 70,000 hectares of pristine rainforest. Petroamazonas – the state-backed oil company – have told them it will begin prospecting on 15 January, backed by public security forces.

Community members are launching a last-ditch legal battle to stop the state-run firm assisted by a British businesswoman, who is married to the village shaman, and who was recently appointed to run the local eco lodge.

Mari Muench, who is originally from London, said the community decided at two meetings late last year to reject a financial offer from the oil firm because they were concerned about the long-term environmental impact of mining. They recently learned, however, that the chief of the village has signed a contract giving the go-ahead for the oil exploration, even though they say he was not authorised to do so.

Earlier offers of a new school, university places for village children and better healthcare were dropped in the document, which provides compensation of only $40 (£24) per hectare, according to copies that the Guardian has seen. The community secretary, Klider Gualinga, said more than 80% of the village is opposed to the oil deal, but a minority are pushing it through against their wishes and local rules....

An image from Yasuni, shot by Geoff Gallice, Wikimedia Commons via Flickr, under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license

Philippines anger at logging ban murder

Terra Daily via AFP: The Philippine government has voiced outrage at "ruthless" illegal loggers intent on defying a nationwide ban on destroying forests, following the New Year's Day murder of an environment officer.

Two unidentified men armed with M-16 rifles shot environment department officer Alfredo Almueda in the head as he waited at a forest checkpoint to intercept a truck carrying logs on Tuesday, the government said in a statement.

"We condemn in the strongest possible terms the killing of yet another environment officer. We are angered and outraged by the attack," Environment Secretary Ramon Paje said in the statement issued late Wednesday.

Paje said Almueda, 59, was the victim of persistent efforts by illegal loggers to silence "environmental defenders". "This attack clearly demonstrates the ruthlessness of those responsible for the rape and destruction of our forests," Paje said.

Almueda's killing brings to 21 the number of environment department personnel, deputised workers and volunteers who have been killed since a nationwide logging ban was imposed two years ago, according to government data...

A mangrove forest in the Philippines, shot by Seacology, Wikimedia Commons, under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license

Curbing Tanzania’s “land grabbing race”

Orton Kiishweko in IPS:  From January 2013, Tanzania will start restricting the size of land that single large-scale foreign and local investors can “lease” for agricultural use. The decision follows both local and international criticism that major investors are grabbing large chunks of land here, often displacing small-scale farmers and local communities.

The Permanent Secretary in the Prime Minister’s Office Peniel Lyimo confirmed that the government would limit the amount of land leased to investors in this East African nation. Previously, there were no limits.

“For a large-scale investor who wants to invest in sugar, the ceiling has been put at 10,000 hectares. (The limit for) rice is 5,000 hectares. The ceiling for sugar is significantly higher due to the fact that it may also produce electric power,” Lyimo told IPS. Sugarcane fibre is used in the generation of electricity.

...The move will come as a relief to land rights organisations that have continually called for the government to curb the land grabs here. 

...In Tanzania’s northern Loliondo district, which is known for its wildlife, much of the land has been leased out to international hunting concessions, which has resulted in the large-scale eviction of the local population – although the government refutes this.  A major U.S. energy company, AgriSol Energy, has also been accused of engaging in land grabs in Tanzania that would displace more than 160,000 Burundian refugees, according to a report by the Oakland Institute. The report states that AgriSol is benefiting from the forcible eviction of the refugees, many of whom are subsistence farmers, and leasing the land — as much as 800,000 acres — from the Tanzanian government for 25 cents per acre...

Mount Lengai seen from Lake Natron, Northern Tanzania, shot by Clem23, Wikimedia Commons, under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license

Should we label genetically modified food?

Bhaskar Vira and David Nally in the "PovertyMatters" blog in the Guardian (UK): On the sidelines of the US presidential election, battle lines were drawn on a Californian ballot that has potential implications for broader debates about the challenges of global food security. Proposition 37, which was narrowly defeated (52.8% of voters opposed the measure), would have required mandatory labelling for all genetically engineered food sold to consumers in California.

...There seems little doubt that achieving food security will involve biotechnology. What is more contentious is the way in which these technologies are rolled out and, more to the point, who stands to benefit. The development, deployment and control of agricultural biotechnology is likely to result in winners and losers. There is no such thing as socially neutral or apolitical technology.

There are, for example, considerable differences between publicly funded genetic research, which is made freely available to farmers and other producers, and patented and protected technologies that are distributed under the proprietary control of private companies. In reality, biotechnological development is likely to involve compromise between the need to provide adequate incentives for research and development within the private sector, including allowing patents and intellectual property to protect profitability, and the need for these technologies to be used on a sufficient scale to offer sustainable solutions to the challenge of feeding 7 billion people.

Concerns about biosafety are equally important. For proponents of genetic technologies to dismiss these as the irrational fears of misinformed consumers is short-sighted, and potentially underestimates the power of consumer voice, especially in the digital age. It's also patronising, suggesting consumers should have choice on the shelves but not on the labels....