The majority of the
world’s remaining rainforests are in developing
countries. So it makes sense that the wealthiest
nations provide money to protect them since
they are responsible for a greater share
of global emissions, not to mention the
fact that they buy most of the products
from rainforest destruction.
In Cancun a formal agreement
to provide money for forests was created
along with safeguards for biodiversity and
people living in the forests. In order to
be able to apply for money from the forest
protection fund, rainforest countries have
to submit a plan that details how the money
will be used to protect forests and reduce
emissions.
It would make sense
to solicit help from supposed experts who
have the respect of the donors. So this
is what several rainforest countries did.
But this is also where the process started
to go wrong.
Enter McKinsey
Several rainforest nations called in management
consulting firm McKinsey. When donor governments
started talking about money for forest protection
a few years ago, McKinsey began to position
itself as the consultants of choice on this
issue. With offices globally, an accepted
approach to carbon economics and many of
Fortune magazine’s “most admired” companies
on their client list, rainforest nations
could feel confident that bringing in McKinsey
would provide the credibility needed to
get their funding proposals past the donor
countries.
It has taken our experts
working in both rainforest and donor countries
several months to go through these plans
for forest funding. They looked at plans
provided by Indonesia, Papua New Guinea,
Guyana and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
They are all riddled with errors and inaccuracies,
make unproven assumptions, and do not include
the safeguards set out by nations at the
Cancun climate talks.
They are all based on
McKinsey’s advice, which does not address
the real drivers of deforestation and would
not lead to an end in forest destruction
or degradation in any of the cases we investigated.
These forest protection plans could actually
fund increased deforestation and increased
emissions.
You can read all the
details in our report Bad Influence – how
McKinsey-inspired plans lead to rainforest
destruction.
There is good news though.
It’s not too late to turn this around as
much of the money to implement these proposals
has not yet been handed out. McKinsey can
make amends, salvage its reputation and
help put rainforest countries on the right
path to forest protection and emissions
reduction by reviewing and revising their
findings.
In the meantime rainforest
nations and donor countries should not commission
or fund any further work from McKinsey until
the company’s advice prioritises ending
deforestation and preventing forest destruction
in areas at risk.
+ More
Deforestation and slave
labour still linked to Brazilian cattle
industry
A cattle farm in the
Amazon - from the Greenpeace International
report 'Slaughtering the Amazon'. Image:
Daniel Beltrá
A 2 billian Reais lawsuit (that’s $900 million
USD) was launched yesterday against 14 slaughterhouses
in the Brazilian state of Acre. These slaughterhouses
are being sued by the public prosecutor
for buying cattle from farms who have been
fined by the Brazilian Environmental Police
for illegal deforestation, and from farmers
who are accused of using slave labour. One
of the slaughterhouses being sued is JBS
– the largest exporter of meat products
in the world.
JBS is also one of the
slaughterhouses that signed an agreement
in 2009 to commit itself to no longer buying
meat from farms involved in deforestation,
embargoed areas and slave labour. Having
a lawsuit brought against it for doing exactly
what it had committed not to do indicates
that JBS and the wider cattle industry have
not managed to progress much further in
their commitments than making the initial
promise. They have produced more nice words
than concrete action to clean up their supply
chains.
It was back in October
of 2009 that the three largest slaughterhouses
operating in the Amazon – which includes
JBS – signed on to a public commitment to
no longer buy from farms involved in new
deforestation, slave labour, or cattle rearing
that breached embargoed or protected areas.
The commitment came after the release of
the Greenpeace report ‘Slaughtering the
Amazon’ which revealed the cattle industry
as the largest driver of deforestation in
the Amazon. International brands like Nike,
Adidas and Timberland then demanded action
from these slaughterhouses to ensure their
products were not coming from deforestation
and slave labour and the slaughterhouses
finally committed.
Now the slaughterhouses
need to act again - and publicly respond
to the serious accusations they are facing.
Until they provide verifiable and independent
audits that prove they are keeping their
commitments to deforestation and slave labour
free products – then buying meat and leather
from the Amazon region remains a risk for
the international brands that are their
customers.
Marine radiation monitoring
blocked by Japanese government
Since the start of the
Fukushima disaster I have been following
the worrying developments from a safe distance
in Amsterdam, but suddenly, I am on rocking
ship getting closer to the disaster area
every day. I joined the Rainbow Warrior
a week ago in Keelung, Taiwan. Normally
I work for Greenpeace Netherlands as a nuclear
campaigner, but my radiation expertise was
needed on board to guarantee the safety
of the crew.
Now we are getting closer to Fukushima,
the Japanese government has begun obstructing
our efforts to do independent research.
The sparse data published by the government
and TEPCO is not enough to understand the
real risks of the continuous leakage of
radioactive water in the sea. The Japanese
people are great need of independent information
on the radioactive contamination of their
seafood supply. Therefore, we are planning
to do research on the radioactive contamination
of seaweed, fish and shellfish.
Despite this great need
for information, the Japanese government
today refused a permit to do research within
the territorial waters of Japan. We are
allowed to conduct research outside this
12 mile zone, but this is not the area where
the Japanese catch their fish and collect
their seaweed.
This is a critical situation,
so we are not giving up. We will continue
heading for Fukushima to begin our research
at a distance while we pursue further permission
to carry out the sampling within the 12
mile limit. The Japanese government should
welcome such independent monitoring, the
fact is they can never have enough information
about the extent of the contamination, and
the public are entitled to the benefit from
the scrutiny and pressure that independent
monitoring brings.
Approaching Fukushima
is not without risks. The reactors are still
not fully under control, and there is a
continuous risk of further escalation. Another
explosion could happen, releasing huge amounts
of radiation, or an aftershock could lead
to the collapse of the reactor building.
Therefore we have decided to implement various
safety measures on the Warrior. We spent
most of last week at sea making her ‘radiation
proof’ by installing radiation detection
equipment on the bridge, ordering special
air filters, and building a designated decontamination
area.
We devoted much time
to briefing the brave crew. It is important
that they have some basic understanding
of radiation, and can assess the risks before
working in a potentially radioactive contamination
environment. We practiced decontamination
procedures, and gave instructions on special
clothing requirements: white Tyvek suits
taped to rubber boots and gloves. I’m personally
very happy that the crew puts their trust
in me and Jacob, the other radiation safety
advisor, to be responsible for their safety.
After the first days
of inevitable seasickness, I’m now pretty
sea-proof and ready to challenge the radiation
risks, and any obstruction of our scientific
mission by the Japanese government.
Exactly 25 years after the Chernobyl nuclear
disaster, the Rainbow Warrior is on her
way to another disaster that will keep reminding
people of the dangers of nuclear power for
at least the next 25 years.
Ike Teuling- Nuclear
Campaigner and radiation expert for our
field radiation team onboard the Rainbow
Warrior
+ More
Chernobyl: the unbearable
lightness of human lives
Dr Shulyak of Rokytne,
who cares for the 53,000 living in the contaminated
region, actually laughed. "Yes, some
have moved away. But the majority of the
community do not want to leave. Their family
and relatives are all here."
I did not fully comprehend
the weight behind his answer. The doctor's
laugh startled me and kept resurfacing in
my mind. And then we met a couple who actually
moved back inside the Exclusion Zone.
Maria and Ivan live
in the village Paryshiv, close to the destroyed
power plant. They were evacuated shortly
after the accident, and then allocated an
apartment with running water after their
village became part of a permanent Exclusion
Zone. "But we missed our home so much,"
Maria told us, "we heard that the radiation
in the village was not so bad and we decided
to move back." They returned to their
home in 1988, and have lived there since.
The village once had 500 residents, today
there are seven.
We walked around in
their small farm, examining their beautiful
chickens, and a small patch of land where
they grew vegetables. It was a sunny day,
bird songs could be heard and a soft breeze
was coming through from the nearby forests.
"I told my grandchildren to come and
visit – the fresh air and walks in the forest
would do them good." Maria said proudly.
For a moment I completely forgot we were
in the biggest nuclear wasteland in the
world.
And then it clicked.
We have such a tight
bond to the land we belong to. Mortgage.
Where you went to school. You and your friends'
favourite meeting place. The home where
you grew up. Local cuisine. How everyone
speaks – complete with the local accent
and the latest slang words. Where your ancestors
are buried. Countless wars had been waged
over territorial disputes. Yet we ask "why
don’t you just move out of the area?"
Of course the doctor
had to laugh at our naïve question.
How much pain must lie behind that decision?
– between staying, trying to get by with
what’s left and surviving the radiation;
or uprooting, leaving your home, everything
you have, and life as you know it, for a
totally uncertain future.
This is not a theoretical
discussion. Two weeks ago, a 102-year old
man in Iitate village near the Fukushima
Daiichi power plant decided to take his
own life when he was told to get ready for
evacuation. Hundreds of thousands now face
the prospect of uprooting themselves, perhaps
permanently. Pripyat was a new town built
for workers of the Chernobyl power plant,
only 16 years old when it was abandoned.
Fukushima city is 900 years old.
90 million people live
within 30km of nuclear power stations today.
The high population density means that a
nuclear accident would do so much more damage.
For large mega-cities such as New York,
Mumbai or Hong Kong, the evacuation of large
population becomes impossible. For many,
there may not even be that choice.
It is very difficult
to fully comprehend the full scale of destruction
and suffering from nuclear disasters, simply
because they are too great. But we mustn't
ignore these terrible truths when discussing
nuclear energy.
+ More
Update from the field
radiation team
Always carrying a personal
dose meter with us, which tells us how much
radiation we are being exposed to, we arrive
at ‘hotspots’ wearing a one-piece protection
suit, gumboots, gloves and a mask to avoid
contact with radioactive particles. We also
cover our car seats, and floormats using
a disposal plastic sheet which we had to
change every day.
Our boots and the floormats
are often the most contaminated part at
the end of each day because we walk on contaminated
soil and grass, and then bring it inside
the car.
We look a bit over the
top, especially when we pass locals wearing
plain clothes, and are often not even wearing
a mask. While were are taking these safety
measures to minimise exposure and only stay
in this area for only a week, we detected
4.5 microSievert per hour - which means
local residents could get the maximum allowable
dose for a year in a matter of weeks.
We often see children
playing outside and touching flowers and
the ground. It's very sad, and easy to imagine
that they put their possibly contaminated
hands in their month. Internal exposure
is hard to estimate and children are more
vulnerable to radiation. I started talking
to mothers and children whenever I have
the chance, explaining the risks and calmly
urging them to take precautions. Unfortunately
there is no way that I can talk to all the
mums and kids in town.
This is shocking. Lots
of people I have talked to said that they
rely on TV as their information source,
and that there has not been any clear explanations
from the authorities or from TEPCO. No wonder
they seem not so aware of the health risks.
Rather than expanding the evacuation zone
and admit the massive scale of the damage,
the Government and TEPCO spent weeks putting
politics before people's health. This is
horrific.
The other day, I had
what turned into an interesting interview.
At the highway roadside service station,
we interviewed the young father of two primary
school kids who had just finished their
entry ceremony to the school that day. I
asked a few questions about what he thinks
about the on-going nuclear crisis and safety,
if he is getting enough information, and
so on. His answer was very typical. He said
he simply follows the Government instructions,
but he is worried about his kids’ health.
I translated this for Jan - one of the radiation
experts - and he pointed out that that this
was an interesting answer because while
the man is is following what the government
says, he is also suspicious of if its claim
at there is no immediate health risk to
people.
It seems that some people
have finally started realising that the
Government can't assure your health and
safety. This might be the light out of the
darkness.
One day last week, I
had a chance to visit one of the evacuation
centres to do some volunteer work. After
carrying boxes of water with other volunteers,
I ended up in a daily volunteer meeting.
There were many high school and university
students with lots of chit-chat and laughs.
They discussed distribution of relief supply,
demand from evacuees, and other issues.
I talked with one of the coordinators and
found out that he was actually one of the
evacuees as well as being involved in the
volunteer group.
He told me that the
rest of his family went to other prefectures
because of his grandmother's sickness and
because his workplace was totally devastated
by the Tsunami. He was well aware of the
contamination of the land, air, water and
food - yes, everything in the place where
he grew up. He told me that he would go
mad if he didn’t get involved in something.
At the end of our conversation, I could
tell he was really close to breaking down.
He was talking cheerfully but he was just
managing to stay sane by being occupied
by the busy volunteer work.
Neither of us could
foresee how long the contamination will
last and when he can go back. I didn't want
to be the first one to start crying so I
left the room.
Every encounter with
people here reminds me that everyone has
a story to tell. It's going to be a long
journey to uncover the full scale of damage
that Japanese society has experienced.
In Solidarity,
Sakyo
