Forestry Law approved: Uribe 1, Environment 0

Info on the "Ley Forestal" (Forestry Law) here:

http://www.wrm.org.uy/bulletin/99/Colombia.html

In Spanish, here:

http://semana.terra.com.co/opencms/opencms/Semana/articulo.html?id=91919

And a column by Alfredo Molano ("Aserrín, aserrán") in El Espectador:

-----
Sesión por sesión, curul por curul, minuto a minuto, el Gobierno presionó a los congresistas para que aprobaran la llamada Ley Forestal. Y lo logró, en contra de la opinión de los ex ministros de Medio Ambiente, del Procurador, del Contralor y de una gran parte de la opinión pública. Se sabe que muchos congresistas no conocen lo que aprobaron porque nunca leyeron el proyecto y menos aún la última versión. Los principales diarios editorializaron en contra y al final algún legislador tránsfuga le dio a Uribe el voto que necesitaba para que la ley pudiera ser firmada. Y, claro, va a ser firmada quizá con un estilógrafo donado por Cartón de Colombia, Smurfit y Pizano, firmas que entre muchas otras ya habrán hecho los planes de prefactibilidad, factibilidad, posfactibilidad y requetefactibilidad para dejar los bosques peluqueados al ‘rape’, o corte paramilitar.

Primero vendrá la elaboración de los Términos de Referencia para los aspirantes que busquen quedarse con la licitación. El procedimiento será como el que se debe estar usando ahora para la concesión en Parques Nacionales: se consulta a los proponentes las condiciones óptimas de ganancia para la futura inversión y con eso se escriben los Términos. Después se presentan los mismos consultados como licitantes y el más vivo —el Tartufo que monopoliza el negocio— hace un pool o cartel con otros proponentes y, como ya sabe los límites, gana la adjudicación. Fácil y, sobre todo, barato.

Una vez adjudicadas las concesiones —y ya sabemos a quién se le va a dar el negocio—, comenzarán los interesados a construir carreteras para entrar las motosierras —unas y otras—, los tractores para mover las enormes trozas de madera, los camiones para llevarlas a los aserríos. Los empleos de que habla el Ministro de Agricultura serán contados con los dedos de una mano porque todo será, como corresponde a una explotación moderna, tecnificado. Y a sacar madera. A los concesionarios, además de cocteles, almuerzos y algunos otros ceveyés resbalados, poco les costarán las licencias para arrasar los bosques. Pero eso es lo de menos: las corporaciones regionales se contentan con las limosnas que les den. Al fin y al cabo, es el hueso que el Gobierno les tirará a los políticos que aprobaron la ley. A propósito de propósitos: ¿Qué pasaría con la denuncia hecha por algún representante sobre el cheque de ocho millones que se ofrecía a cambio del pupitrazo?

Sigamos. Una vez aserrada la madera, los concesionarios reemplazarán el bosque nativo por las especies que les convenga para seguir explotando la madera: pinos, pinos y pinos. Muchos pinos. La Amazonia, la Orinoquia, la región Pacífica comenzarán a parecerse a Suiza, en el mejor de los casos; porque el peor es que se conviertan en grandes ganaderías con pastos braquiarias, corrales de cemento, balcón para tomar aguardiente y una bandera de la patria. El doctor ya Rico debió haber encargado unos zamarros de piel de castor a Canadá por sugerencia de nuestro ex embajador.

Ni los ministros de Medio Ambiente y Vivienda, ni el de Agricultura ni, claro está, los preclaros congresistas se han dado cabal cuenta de que, en el fondo, la ley que acaban de sacar a empujones en el Congreso va en contravía de la otra que ya empujan, la Ley de Aguas, puesto que la primera reducirá a muy poco la producción de aguas, que son la mercancía que quieren vender con la segunda. Sin duda no se dan cuenta, porque se trata de negociar, negociar y negociar todo, enseña de este gobierno. Si el señor Uribe vuelve a ser elegido, nuestros bosques serán convertidos en aserrín, y el agua que van a vender con la ley que pujan se habrá evaporado. Ni maderos de San Juan, ni del Atrato, ni del Putumayo, ni del Caquetá.
-----

By Sr Tertius on Dec 21, 2005, 07:47 in Politics & the war.

cali373 says on Dec 21, 2005, 14:44:

Can someone please break this down in english. I am not in the mood. :)

Smile if you are a thinker!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Dec 21, 2005, 15:34:

More official Colombian support for FARC... And the government wonders why FARC has so much, some, or any support among the population?

Official Colombia is doing so much damage to Colombia through its corruption (the rich get richer) by destroying Colombia's natural resources, selling them to the highest bidder.

The common people who are neither armed nor huge landowners will continue to suffer. This can only help FARC recruitment efforts...

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Dec 21, 2005, 16:09:

Cali The first link I provided is in English. Unfortunately, it's the least informative, but that's usually the case with this sort of news. I only transcribed Molano's column because I couldn't figure out how to link it.

"Human beings are perhaps never more frightening than when they are convinced beyond doubt that they are right."
- Laurens van der Post.

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Dec 22, 2005, 12:40:

Fuzzy Math For the record, I don't approve of this law, in principle, but I also do not approve of the way in which it is being discussed here, in such a polarized and politized manner.

Doesn't mean that I'm calling for people to shut up about it, which would be stupid because I have no intention to defend this law, at all.

It's just that I think that, all too often, people are mixing up issues which aren't necessarily that directly related, simply for political purposes. And not very useful ones, in the end.

platano:
"And the government wonders why FARC has so much, some, or any support among the population?"

I do not, as has already been discussed here.

But actually, what I'm wondering about is why are you rushing to relate *that* with this particular issue, which is different.

"Official Colombia is doing so much damage to Colombia through its corruption (the rich get richer) by destroying Colombia's natural resources, selling them to the highest bidder."

Umm...seriously, platano, you know that the environment's not exactly one of the main concerns that drives people to join the FARC, nor into planting coca.

That may make you angry, justifiably even, but the situation doesn't really represent what you are arguing right now.

"The common people who are neither armed nor huge landowners will continue to suffer. This can only help FARC recruitment efforts..."

Not impossible, but I fail to see how that is a necessity, in this particular case.

Not talking about the overall statement, just about the relationship between your conclusion and the Forestry Law itself.

I may be rather dumb sometimes, but I think that it would actually be more productive (even for political purposes) to focus on the specific flaws in the Forestry Law itself and to use that as part of a serious campaign that criticizes the government's handling of the environment, pure and simple, instead of going off into wild apocalyptic tangents.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Dec 24, 2005, 10:03:

Juance "I also do not approve of the way in which it is being discussed here, in such a polarized and politized manner."

I agree with you that discussions should be based on factual data, and reasoned through. That is not incompatible with the strength of conviction that you seem to characterize as "polarized" and "politized". This government has completely disregarded all the reasoned debates on environmental issues. Even though you and I and Platano can discuss these matters in a reasonable way, the time to reason with the government (over this and many other matters) is over. I cannot be but polarized and politized against the doctrinarian positions of the Uribe administration and its disregard for the facts.

I don't quite agree with Platano's suggestion that this provides strong motivation to join any kind of insurgency. However, this is the kind of policy that over the long run has resulted in significant political unrest (e.g., the indigenous uprisings in Ecuador and Bolivia).

"Human beings are perhaps never more frightening than when they are convinced beyond doubt that they are right."
- Laurens van der Post.

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Dec 24, 2005, 10:29:

It is the cumulative effect that aids the insurgency... I do not agree with juancegomez that the environment is not one of people's main concerns. I have been most favorably impressed with the high level of environmental concern among Colombians and I was a participant/witness in the recovery of Rio Medellin during the 80's and 90's. I witnessed a strong and burgeoning environmental consciousness.

The Forestry Law discussed in isolation cannot be said to be an impetus to join an insurgent movement (though for some it may be). What can be said is that the cumulative effect of goverment violation of human rights, government corruption, government policies which fail to address high unemployment, etc. is only added to by a government law which furthers the destruction of Colombia's natural resources.

The demoralization and fundamental injustice resulting from such governmental behavior could certainly be said to be a factor in maintaining the insurgency. The issues are interrelated. Neglect and unemployment combined with persistent corruption are all factors.

The Forestry Law could easily be the straw that broke the camel's back, the gota que reboso la copa, or the impetus to join an insurgent movement with nationalist rhetoric that pretends to save Colombia from a goverment that is perceived as not caring or as being an active agent of the destruction of Colombia.

The Forestry Law only reinforces those perceptions.

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

cali373 says on Dec 27, 2005, 09:37:

pro and cons I cannot seem to understand what we are talking about. What are the pros and cons of this forestry law? Thank you

Smile if you are a thinker!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Dec 27, 2005, 12:11:

cali373:

"I cannot seem to understand what we are talking about. What are the pros and cons of this forestry law? Thank you"

That, precisely, is what we should really be discussing.

However, I am not as informed about the technical and non-technical details of this as I would like. In other words, I'm not exactly prepared to present "just the facts" themselves at this time, without being overly biased (my personal opinion, as previously stated, is to be against this law).

Still, that doesn't prevent me from recognizing that *that's* what we should be talking about.

Nevertheless...some additional links about the subject (if somebody could find a link to the *exact* text of the entire law, that would be useful):

http://eltiempo.terra.com.co/judi/03dejuniode2005/ARTICULO-WEB-_NOTA_INTERIOR-2093444.html

http://www.etniasdecolombia.org/periodico_detalle.asp?cid=3067

http://eltiempo.terra.com.co/poli/2005-12-16/ARTICULO-WEB-_NOTA_INTERIOR-2658183.html

http://eltiempo.terra.com.co/ecologia/noticiasecolgicas/ARTICULO-WEB-_NOTA_INTERIOR-2093286.html

Sr Tertius:

That may arguably be so...but I fear that, by fighting fire with fire (figuratively speaking), it won't actually make much of a positive difference either, if any, and instead plays right into the hands of those that stand the most to profit from all this (guess who).

Doesn't mean that the defense of the environment and the rejection of the government's policies shouldn't be strongly advocated. Make it a campaign issue, definitely, just that it should be done within the limits of what is reasonable and in such a way that it can possibly make a difference.

Otherwise, you may simply alienate your potential audience and it'll all be for naught. Some think that people will automatically open their eyes and rush to vote against Uribe simply by hurling insults and exaggerated labels (even if their "core" is more or less true) at him and at his policies. I think not.

"I don't quite agree with Platano's suggestion that this provides strong motivation to join any kind of insurgency. However, this is the kind of policy that over the long run has resulted in significant political unrest (e.g., the indigenous uprisings in Ecuador and Bolivia)."

Taking that into account, I can agree with that.

platano:

"It is the cumulative effect that aids the insurgency..."

The cumulative effect of many, many things, in a much bigger picture.

"I do not agree with juancegomez that the environment is not one of people's main concerns. "

You misunderstood me. I said that it is not one of the main concerns of ***most of those that join the FARC or plant coca***, period. I said nothing more, nothing less.

"I have been most favorably impressed with the high level of environmental concern among Colombians and I was a participant/witness in the recovery of Rio Medellin during the 80's and 90's. I witnessed a strong and burgeoning environmental consciousness."

Quite so. But I'm sure you realize that that's an entirely different subject, both in itself and in the context of this discussion.

"(though for some it may be)."

Possibly, but very improbably.

"What can be said is that the cumulative effect of goverment violation of human rights, government corruption, government policies which fail to address high unemployment, etc. is only added to by a government law which furthers the destruction of Colombia's natural resources."

Disregarding differences in style and tone, plus the fact that this has also been mentioned elsewhere in this forum...this is actually a much more reasonable argument.

"The demoralization and fundamental injustice resulting from such governmental behavior could certainly be said to be a factor in maintaining the insurgency. The issues are interrelated. Neglect and unemployment combined with persistent corruption are all factors."

Yes, though they themselves are only a few of the entire set of factors, as we should all know. It's hard to predict exactly what will be the result.

"The Forestry Law could easily be the straw that broke the camel's back, the gota que reboso la copa, or the impetus to join an insurgent movement with nationalist rhetoric that pretends to save Colombia from a goverment that is perceived as not caring or as being an active agent of the destruction of Colombia."

"The Forestry Law only reinforces those perceptions."

An interesting hypothesis, let's see if the facts prove it right or not.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

cali373 says on Dec 27, 2005, 13:09:

It seems that the forestry law (or better said anti-forestry) opens up native forests to logging. What I see as a major concern is that paramilitary militias have taken over a lot of land of which had been expropriated by the government. This has led to the forced displacement of around two million people. And even you staunch “Uribistas�? know this is true. Most of the displaced are indigenous people or afro-descendants. I sense that these displaced Colombians did not have representation when this new law was being passed. (What do you think?). These people tried to protect themselves because they were not protected by the state, which everyone knows is collusion with the military and many government officials. I hope that this law is not a legalization of paramilitary takeover of land collectively owned by indigenous and black communities. If the state does not protect these displaced Colombians then I would say that is a cause to be anti paramilitary or anti-government. I am not necessarily saying people will go out and join the guerillas but the following things in mind. The paramilitaries do not distinguished between disagreeing with oligarch and business interests and being guerilla. If you are against paramilitary interests, then you are automatically a guerilla sympathizer and your life is grave danger all while the Colombian government looks the way. You don’t think being anti-paramilitary and not having the state protect you, may just generate a guerilla recruit or some kind of unrest.

Smile if you are a thinker!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Dec 29, 2005, 09:33:

Taking into account what I previously typed... ...I'll still make a couple of comments. For the record, I am not a staunch "uribista", and if being "uribista" means wanting Uribe to be reelected in 2006, then I'm not even close to being an "uribista" at all.

"It seems that the forestry law (or better said anti-forestry) opens up native forests to logging."

To a degree, however the matter is far more nuanced than that. The law itself, at least according to press reports, formally prohibits the logging of forests that belong to indigenous natives and other communities. It does, arguably, promote the logging of outlying areas that are not formally a part of them.

"What I see as a major concern is that paramilitary militias have taken over a lot of land of which had been expropriated by the government."

I am not entirely in agreement with the wording of this statement, word by word, but the overall point is formally sound, and I definitely can see where you are coming from...

"This has led to the forced displacement of around two million people. "
...but here I must speak up a bit more. The forced displacement of around two million people can hardly be attributed exclusively to the factors outlined in the above statement.

"And even you staunch “Uribistas�? know this is true.

See above.

"Most of the displaced are indigenous people or afro-descendants."

I'm actually not certain of this and in fact I can even doubt it. They might be more affected, proportionally, but I am not sure about their being most of the displaced, in absolute terms.

"I sense that these displaced Colombians did not have representation when this new law was being passed."

Seems like a valid point, though I believe more information is necessary before stating it so bluntly.

"These people tried to protect themselves because they were not protected by the state, which everyone knows is collusion with the military and many government officials."

Seems like you forgot the word "paramilitary" somewhere in there, but the idea is clear.

"I hope that this law is not a legalization of paramilitary takeover of land collectively owned by indigenous and black communities."

Not necessarily. But it can't be ruled out yet either.

"If the state does not protect these displaced Colombians then I would say that is a cause to be anti paramilitary or anti-government."

In a vacuum, perhaps so. However, you do realize that the matter isn't limited to the factors you pointed out, don't you?

"The paramilitaries do not distinguished between disagreeing with oligarch and business interests and being guerilla."

True, but the opposite is also true in some sectors.

"If you are against paramilitary interests, then you are automatically a guerilla sympathizer and your life is grave danger all while the Colombian government looks the way."

This is partially true, but that's a rather simple way to put it. Doesn't take many things into account that often the situation isn't as "black and white".

"You don’t think being anti-paramilitary and not having the state protect you, may just generate a guerilla recruit or some kind of unrest."

In very vague terms, yes. But real life is not made out of simply general statements, you know. Context, specific situtations and even technical details actually matter. So we should be careful about assuming too much, far too fast.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

cali373 says on Dec 30, 2005, 08:18:

"Most of the displaced are indigenous people or afro-descendants."
I must admit that was a broad statement. However that is true of the displaced in the Choco, Northen Antoquia regions. Also in regions where there is African palm interests.

Smile if you are a thinker!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

ws244 says on Jan 5, 2006, 13:05:

forestry The article 2 weeks ago in El Tiempo was written by my brother in law. He coordinated with the legislators for well over a year to help pass this legislation. Previously he was the second in charge at the Colombian EPA. It is a good piece of legislation, and he is socially more pro indigenous than pro Uribe.

0 funny, 0 helpful.