Children of the Forest – a Disappearing Culture?

In Malaysia and Indonesia, the main biofuel grown and processed is palm oil, the production of which has led to the destruction of millions of acres of rainforest. It is believed that of 16 million hectares of rainforest in Sumatra, only 500,000 hectares remain and all could be lost if no action is taken within the next five years (RSPB, 2010a). The tribe, Orang Rimba of Sumatra call themselves Children of the Forest, since they feel the forest is like a father and mother to them, they believe spirits advise them on how to survive on the fruits of the forest (Lost in Palm Oil, 2007). For them, the land cannot be owned and farmed, and it goes against their ethics and culture to do so, therefore, no matter how sustainable the plantations, are, any kind of land manipulation is a crime as Din Perulak the tribal head of Orang Rimba explains below.

“It's as if our mother is dying… There are plantations everywhere…How are we supposed to survive when there is no forest anymore?...This is the land where our ancestors live. We would lose our souls if we were to start working on this land. ” (Lost in Palm Oil, 2007, 01’32”)

With the expanding need to replace oil with biofuels, many countries may classify the land farmed by subsistence farmers as unproductive in economic terms in order to free up the land for external investors to plant biofuel crops (FAO, 2008). Often expropriation is easy since local users will often own no formal tenure rights, and the pressure to convert land to “productive” oil crop plantations may put further pressure on local communities and oust them from not only their land but from their traditional ways of living (FAO, 2008).

As land availability and resources deplete, indigenous communities may find it difficult to continue with their ancient ways of living such as foraging from the forest, and may have to adopt alternative lifestyles such as labouring or logging. Yet depriving indigenous peoples of their land contravenes Article 26 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Renewable Fuels Agency, 2010).

Yet in the World Growth report it is claimed that denying poor people the right of access to such biofuel plantations is denying them the right to increase their living standards (World Growth, 2009). However in reality, displaced families have little choice but to work on plantations for very low wages. In Malaysia, availability of migrant workers (often illegal Indonesian migrants) can further depress wages (Renewable Fuels Agency, 2010).

Communities may lose access to areas of forest which may have been economically beneficial and the loss of wild edible plants could have an impact in areas prone to food shortages (Rossi and Lambrou, 2008). One illegal plantation logger remarked in a documentary “the work on these oil palm plantations is… nothing but exploitation. We’re only day-labourers and when it rains there’s no work… You’re only paid a pittance, if anything at all,” (Greasy Loot, 2002, 17’17”). Yet some companies are proactively trying to care for the community for example a company in Sumatra provided livestock to its employee families (Zen et al., 2006).

Little alternative policy has arisen which could suit the needs of the displaced, and socio-economically disadvantaged communities. Even sustainable companies such as Sinar Mas in Indonesia have been caught stealing land from locals. In a recent court case, the villagers of Karang Mendapo won a four year battle from the company Sinar Mas which they alleged had stolen their land (Lost in Palm Oil, 2007). Now organisations such as RSPB have recognised that time is running out and that a new approach must be taken to protect the rainforests and traditional farming or tribal ways of life. The RSPB have bought an area of land called the Harapan Forest in Sumatra and are now working with a group of 27 families who have been allowed to forage in the forest and practise their traditional livelihoods (RSPB, 2010b). This model could perhaps be used in other fragile areas in order to protect the disappearing ecosystems, cultures and traditions which have been neglected.

A family in Harapan forest practising traditional skills.

References

Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) (2008) ‘Climate Change, Biofuels and Land,’ Available at: ftp://ftp.fao.org/nr/HLCinfo/Land-Infosheet-En.pdf (Accessed 2nd April 2010)

‘Greasy Loot’ (2002) Greasy Loot, 11 October, Journeyman Pictures, [Online] Available at: http://www.journeyman.tv/10271/documentaries/greasy-loot.html (Accessed 1^st April 2010)

‘Lost in Palm Oil,’ (2007) Lost in Palm Oil, 22 November, Journeyman Pictures, [Online] Available at: http://www.journeyman.tv/?lid=57724 (Accessed 1^st April 2010)

Renewable Fuels Agency (2010) Palm Oil Cultivation in Malaysia: Case Study, [Online] Renewable Fuels Agency. Available at; http://www.renewablefuelsagency.gov.uk/sites/renewablefuelsagency.gov.uk/files/_documents/RFA_Year_One_palm_case_study.pdf (Accessed 1st April 2010)

Rossi, A., and Lambrou, Y., (2008) Gender and Equity Issues in Liquid Biofuels Production: Minimizing the Risks to Maximize the Opportunities [Online] Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. Available at: ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/ai503e/ai503e00.pdf (Accessed 10th April 2010)

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) (2010a) ‘Save the Sumatran Rainforest: Be Part of Something Big,’ [Online] Available at: http://www.rspb.org.uk/supporting/campaigns/sumatra/ (Accessed 17^th May 2010)

RSPB (2010b) ‘Harapan Rainforest’ [Online] Available at: http://www.rspb.org.uk/community/blogs/sumatra/default.aspx (Accessed 19th May 2010)

World Growth (2009) Collateral Damage: How The Bogus Campaign against Palm Oil Harms the Poor [Online] A World Growth Report. Available at: www.worldgrowth.org/assets/files/WG_Palm_Oil_ColDam_Report_12_09.pdf (Accessed 4th May 2010)

Zen, Z., Barlow, C. and Gondowarsito, R. (2006) ‘Oil palm in Indonesian socioeconomic improvement: a review of options,’ Oil Palm Industry Economic Journal, 6 pp. 18–29.

Sustainable Development – a Focus on People or Nature?

The concept sustainable development with its focus on social justice and fore-thinking for future generations is often cited as an anthropocentric value system (Palmer, 2003). Therefore, according to an anthropocentric framework, saving nature would depend upon saving those areas of value to human needs; a philosophy which has initiated great debate about whether nature should be valued in instrumental terms which are subjective or whether this philosophy cannot be rejected since ascribing values to nature which are not humanly-based is difficult (Light and Rolston, 2003).

In the European Union’s 2003 directive on the promotion of biofuels for transport, the first declaration is that the development of biofuels will be used as a strategy for sustainable development (Official Journal of the European Union, 2003). In 2006, the European Commission (2006a) published A Vision for 2030 and Beyond which stated a target of replacing a quarter of transport fuel with biofuels

However, reports have been circulating concerning how destructive biofuel corporations have been, replacing rainforests with monoculture plantations and exploiting poor, displaced communities (Greenpeace, 2009). In order to counter such negative press, the EU’s 2006 directive stressed the importance of sustainable production which focused on the protection of biodiversity, water, soil, habitats and species (European Commission, 2006b). In 2004 the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) was launched to examine the social issues surrounding palm oil production and for a company to become RSPO certified it had to meet minimum criteria (Renewable Fuels Agency, 2010).

Greenpeace has since led campaigns against sustainable palm-oil producers and in 2009, Sinar Mas, a member of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil was exposed in a report as engaging in illegal deforestation and peatland clearance (Greenpeace, 2009). Pressure was put on a leading purchaser of Sinar Mas’s biofuel, Unilever and eventually the company withdrew its contract with its suppliers (Greenpeace, 2009).

However an NGO, World Growth (2009), has spoken out against organisations such as Greenpeace which it believes are halting a sustainable product which can help end poverty. World Growth (2009) are committed to promoting the benefits of globalization to lessen the divide between rich and poor through trade and sustainable development; they take a completely anthropocentric approach and have even questioned the EU’s stance on trade barriers against imports of fuel produced on cleared land, calling such practices unwarranted in their failure to prevent poverty and preventing developing nations the right to clear their land for development. They even claim that biofuels are not driving deforestation, that instead, two-thirds of forest clearance is driven by low income people searching for land and food.

From an anthropocentric point of view, it could be argued that biofuels have been marketed by the EU as a green, ethical solution to the socio-economic problems of developing countries; that it can provide employment opportunities, and help people out of poverty, whilst at the same time meeting the fuel demands of developed nations, helping to cut carbon emissions, thus tackling global warming. However, conflicts in values between corporate notions of sustainability and tribal values have arisen. For the tribes of Sumatra, logging and farming the land is seen as a crime against the spirits of the forest, not a great employment opportunity as NGO’s such as World Growth believe.

References

European Commission (2006a) Biofuels in the European Union: A Vision for 2030 and Beyond, [Online] Biofuels Research Advisory Council. EUR 22066. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/research/rtdinfo/index_en.html (Accessed 15^th March 2010)

European Commission (2006b) An EU Strategy for Biofuels [Online] Commission of the European Communities COM(2006) 34 final. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/research/rtdinfo/index_en.html (Accessed 15^th March 2010)

Greenpeace (2009) ‘A Defining Moment for the Palm Oil Industry as Unilever Breaks link with Forest Destruction?’ [Online] Available at: http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/forests/defining-moment-palm-oil-industry-unilever-breaks-link-forest-destruction-20091209 (Accessed 14th May 2010)

Light, A., and Rolston III, H., (2003) ‘Introduction: Ethics and Environmental Ethics,’ in Light, A. and Rolston III, H. (ed.) Environmental Ethics, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd pp.1-24

Official Journal of the European Union, (2003) Directive 2003/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 May 2003, [Online] The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/res/legislation/doc/biofuels/en_final.pdf (Accessed 14^th May 2010)

Palmer, C., (2003) ‘An Overview of Environmental Ethics,’ in Light, A. and Rolston III, H. (ed.) Environmental Ethics, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd pp.120-156

Renewable Fuels Agency (2010) Palm Oil Cultivation in Malaysia: Case Study, [Online] Renewable Fuels Agency. Available at; http://www.renewablefuelsagency.gov.uk/sites/renewablefuelsagency.gov.uk/files/_documents/RFA_Year_One_palm_case_study.pdf (Accessed 1st April 2010)

World Growth (2009) Collateral Damage: How The Bogus Campaign against Palm Oil Harms the Poor [Online] A World Growth Report. Available at: www.worldgrowth.org/assets/files/WG_Palm_Oil_ColDam_Report_12_09.pdf (Accessed 4th May 2010)

Sugar Cane Production in Brazil – Exploiting the Poor?

It is estimated that nearly 1 million people in Brazil are employed in the sugarcane industries, however, due to increasing mechanization it is estimated that the workforce will drop by between 52%-64% (Proforest, 2009). Those in the sector are paid more than those in other agricultural sectors, receiving on average 50% more than the minimum wage (Unica, 2008a) yet since it is seasonal work, jobs are often only temporary (Proforest, 2009).

The industry has come under attack from various organisations such as Friends of the Earth (2008) which has blamed the industry for displacing farmers and pushing them into the Amazon, for causing deforestation in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest and for expanding into the biodiverse savannah, Cerrado. However a regulatory body, UNICA (2009) dismisses such accusations as myths, claiming that any future expansion into the Amazon, Cerrado or other sensitive areas has been prohibited in new legislation, although this does not deny that previous expansion may have occurred or that it is happening illegally.

There have also been complaints against the industry for its poor working conditions; since many workers are paid according to the volume of cane cut that day, many exhaust themselves working long days (Proforest, 2009) with dangerous tools such as machetes (Smeets et al., 2006). Such piece rate work often uses child labour and can discriminate against women (Rossi and Lambrou, 2008). It has also been described as modern-day slavery (Friends of the Earth, 2008), however, UNICA, (2008b) refutes the claim that a workforce of up to 1 million could be enslaved, and that since Brazil has signed the International Labour Organization’s Pact for the Eradication of Slave Labour, it claims that the industry is very transparent with such matters.

The Brazilian Ministry of Labor has taken out lawsuits against sugarcane employers for poor conditions where workers are subjected to inhaling dust and smoke from the burning of sugarcane which has been linked to many health problems and many have simply died of exhaustion (Martinelli and Filoso, 2008).

UNICA (2008b), in its defence of the industry claims that its member companies have invested some R$ 160 million in 618 projects within cultural, social, education, environmental, sport and health areas, benefiting around 480 thousand people. UNICA (2008b) and the Federation of Registered Rural Workers of the State of São Paulo (FERAESP) have also made recommendations for rural labourers such as better transportation of workers to and from the field. Yet some claim these schemes are never free of bias and cases from Brazil have shown that certification systems such as the Forest Stewardship Council have committed fraud (Friends of the Earth, 2008).

References

Friends of the Earth Europe (2008) ‘Sustainability as a smokescreen: The inadequacy of certifying fuels and feeds,’ [Online] Available at: http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/2008/sustainability_smokescreen_fullreport_med_res.pdf (Accessed 2nd May 2010)

Martinelli, L.A., and Filoso, S., (2008) ‘Expansion of Sugarcane Ethanol Production in Brazil: Environmental and Social Challenges,’ Ecological Applications, 18(4), pp. 885–898

Proforest (2009) RFA annual report: Case study on Brazilian sugarcane, [Online] Renewable Fuels Agency. Available at: http://www.renewablefuelsagency.gov.uk/_db/_documents/Case_study_-_Brazilian_sugar_cane_-_ProForest_for_RFA.pdf (Accessed 6^th April 2010)

Rossi, A., and Lambrou, Y., (2008) Gender and Equity Issues in Liquid Biofuels Production: Minimizing the Risks to Maximize the Opportunities [Online] Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. Available at: ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/ai503e/ai503e00.pdf (Accessed 10th April 2010)

Smeets, E., Junginger, M., Faaij, A., Walter, A. and Dolzan, P. (2006) Sustainability of Brazilian Bio-ethanol, [Online] Copernicus Institute NWS-E-2006-110. Available at: http://np-net.pbworks.com/f/Smeets+et+al+(2006)+Sustainability+of+Brazilian+bioethanol,+Copernicus+Institute+&+Unicamp.pdf (Accessed 21 April, 2010)

UNICA (2008a) Sugarcane Industry in Brazil [Online] UNICA. Available at: http://english.unica.com.br/multimedia/publicacao/ (Accessed 1^st April 2010)

UNICA 2008b) Partial list of factual errors and unsubstantiated claims contained in the report “fuelling destruction in Latin America”, distributed by the non-government organization “friends of the earth” on September 10, 2008 [Online] UNICA. Available at: http://www.unica.com.br/downloads/documents/factualerrors.pdf (Accessed 31 March 2010)

UNICA (2009) Brazilian Sugarcane Ethanol: Get the Facts Right and Kill the Myths [Online] UNICA. Available at: www.unica.com.br (Accessed 1^st April 2010)