Liebe Freunde!

Vor ein paar Tagen habe ich in einer E-Mail-Aktion um Hilfe gebeten, um ALDI den Verkauf von Raubbauholz aus Indonesien zu verleiden. Es hat funktioniert! ALDI hat zugesagt, dass sie in Zukunft nur noch nach FSC zertifiziertesHolz verkaufen wollen.

Jetzt heisst es am Ball bleiben! Andere verkaufen fröhlich weiter Raubbauholz und auch die müssen wir in die Knie zwingen. Ausserdem muss endlich ein Gesetz verabschiedet werden, das den Import von Raubbauholz nach Deutschland endgültig verbietet. Es wird höchste Zeit!

Ich bitte Euch daher:

1.) Tragt Euch unter http://www.wald.org/was_tun/register.php ein. Dann werdet Ihr bei der nächsten Aktion rechtzeitig vorher informiert und wir können alle gemeinsam agieren.

2.) Tragt Euch unter http://www.wald.org/was_tun/support1.php ein, um von der Regierung ein Gesetz zu fordern, das den Import von Raubbauholz nach Deutschland verbietet (oder noch besser, ladet eine Unterschriftenliste runter und macht sie voll: http://www.wald.org/was_tun/li06.pdf)

3.) Leitet diese Mail weiter an Freunde, Verwandte und Verteiler.

Wir Verbraucher haben Macht! Wir müssen sie nur nutzen, statt
unsere Möglichkeiten zu verschlafen!

Viele Grüße,

Kjell Kühne


Und hier nun, wie es dazu kam: Unter den Empfängern meiner Mail war auch ein Freund, der bei spiegel online arbeitet. Er fand die
Geschichte interessant - und sie brachten einen Artikel darüber.(http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/0,1518,300704,00.html)

Wenn Ihr mal ALDI und Tropenholz bei Google eingebt, werdet Ihr sehen, dass das ein ziemliches Echo gefunden hat!

Robin Wood hat zwei Aktionen in Berlin gemacht und ALDI auch angeschrieben. Mein Bruder Veit hat in Dresden am Montag eine spektakuläre Aktion gemacht und ausserdem mit dem Einkäufer von ALDI telefoniert, der aber keine Infos herausrücken wollte. Ich habe am Montag in Göttingen und Rosdorf und am Dienstag in Herzberg bei ALDI Aktionen gemacht und alle Kunden informiert (bis die Polizei gerufen oder damit gedroht wurde). Insgesamt war ALDI der
ganze Rummel zuviel. Per Brief haben sie Robin Wood jetzt zugesagt, dass sie zukünftig nur noch Holz mit FSC-Siegel verkaufen wollen!(Meldung unter:

http://www.umwelt.org/robin-wood/german/presse/neu/aktuell5.htm)

ALDI ist natürlich kein Holzspezialist, so dass ihnen das nicht besonders weh tut, und wer weiß ob sie sich auch tatsächlich daranhalten. Umso wichtiger ist es, auf diesen Erfolg aufzubauen und bei anderen, die mehr Raubbauholz verkaufen weiter zu machen und besonders natürlich, die Politik zum Handeln zu drängen. Es ist einfach unglaublich: wir haben seit 6 Jahren eine Grüne Regierung und es ist in Deutschland immer noch legal, in Indonesien geklautes Raubbauholz zuverkaufen!!!

FORESTS ALERT!

Indonesian Oil Palm Destroys Rainforests, Intimidates Communities Protest Deutsche Bank's Funding of PT London Sumatra

By Forests.org, http://forests.org/

May 29, 2004

TAKE ACTION @ http://forests.org/action/indonesia/

Indonesia loses at least two million hectares of rainforest every year, much due to monoculture oil palm plantations. Oil palm is a vegetable oil produced on vast estate plantations in South East Asia and exported to Western markets. Oil palm plantation creation frequently destroys ancient primary rainforests, wipes out 80-100% of local biodiversity, leads to pollution of land and water from pesticides, and displaces local communities. Land is often stolen from forest dependent local peoples.

In Sumatra the huge oil palm company "PT London Sumatra" is currently intimidating a local community which is peacefully fighting for the return of their forest lands. The oil palm company has dug a massive ditch, 6 metres deep and 4 wide, around the village to cut off the protesting villagers. And now the company has sent in militias to violently silence the villagers. PT London Sumatra is largely bankrolled by the German Deutsche Bank. Email Deutsche Bank - encouraging them to pressure London Sumatra to stop its intimidation, and demand the Bank not fund further expansion of oil palm plantations into primary rainforests. Human rights abuses are at the core of the rainforests crisis. Together we must make a stand and end such barbaric and ecocidal practices - please send this email now!

TAKE ACTION @ http://forests.org/action/indonesia/

Bürgerinitiative will aktiv bleiben

Enttäuschung beim Bürgerbegehren Schlosspark über die Abweisung der Klage gegen die Stadt

Von Ernst-Johann Zauner

Professor Berthold Burkhardt, neben Nicole Palm und Knut Meyer-Degering einer der Initiatoren des "Bürgerbegehrens Schlosspark", zeigte sich nach dem Abweisen der Klage gegen den Verwaltungsausschuss der Stadt (siehe Titelseite) enttäuscht: "Wir haben das befürchtet und sind natürlich enttäuscht. Es häufen sich scheinbar die Fälle in Braunschweig, in denen das Verwaltungsgericht gegen die Bürger entscheidet, siehe Funkmast in Volkmarode."

Und er kündigte sogleich an, dass die Bürgerinitiative in Berufung gehen werde, so sie zulässig sei. Da der Verwaltungsgerichtspräsident Enno Harms, der die Verhandlung führte, von sich aus den Weg für die Berufung vor dem Oberverwaltungsgericht (OVG) Lüneburg nicht frei machte, bleibt der Initiative nun die Möglichkeit, innerhalb von vier Wochen nach Zustellung des Urteils diese beim OVG zu beantragen.

"Auf jeden Fall werden wir als Bürgerinitiative in der Stadt aktiv bleiben", erklärt Burkhardt. Und Joachim Wrensch von der Vereinigung der Innenstadtkaufleute gegen die Schloss-Arkaden meinte: "Ein trauriges Urteil für die Stadt Braunschweig."

Zuvor hatten die Vertreter der Bürgerinitiative Nicole Palm, Knut Meyer-Degering und Professor Berthold Burkhardt noch einmal die Position der Initiative dargelegt. Dabei stellte der Anwalt der Initiative, Siegfried de Witt aus Berlin, den Beweisantrag, die Stadt möge den Vertrag des Verkaufs des Schlossparks an ECE offen legen, um festzustellen, ob die Stadt noch ein Verfügungsrecht über das Areal habe. Harms wies den Beweisantrag ab, da der Sachverhalt auf die Gestaltung der Entscheidung keinen Einfluss habe.

Zur Niedersächsischen Gemeindeordnung (NGO), deren gesetzliche Bestimmungen den Bürgerentscheid verhinderten, meinte de Witt: "Die NGO hat für Bürgerbegehren und Demokratie sehr hohe Hürden gestellt, deshalb müssen die Bestimmungen sehr großzügig ausgelegt werden." Den Schlosspark zu erhalten sei kein Eingriff in die Bauleitplanung, habe aber natürlich Auswirkungen auf sie, meinte de Witt weiter. Das könne im Sinne einer demokratiefreundlichen Auslegung der NGO nicht negativ ausgelegt werden.

Verwaltungsgerichtspräsident Enno Harms sah das anders. Das Bürgerbegehren wende sich gegen einen Ratsbeschluss zur Aufstellung des Bebauungsplanes und die darin zum Ausdruck gekommenen bauplanerischen Vorstellungen der Stadt Braunschweig. Der Gesetzgeber habe sicherstellen wollen, dass Bürgerbegehren keinen Einfluss auf die Bauleitplanung der Gemeinden hätten. Denn für die in den Planungsverfahren zu treffenden Entscheidungen seien eine Vielzahl öffentlicher und privater Interessen gegeneinander abzuwägen, die sich "nicht in das Schema einer Abstimmung mit ,Ja‘ oder ,Nein‘ pressen lassen", erläutert Harms seine Ablehnung der Klage der Initiative.

Freitag, 28.05.2004

http://www.newsclick.de/index.jsp/menuid/2048/artid/2837664

Omega: siehe auch http://www.schlosspark-braunschweig.de/begehren.html


Nachricht von der BI Bad Dürkheim

Recently, a team of Greenpeace activists decided to get out their power tools and do a little renovation of their own at the EU's recently refurbished buildings in Brussels. They found that despite previous lofty promises the EU is actually buying timber from companies linked to Indonesia's illegal timber trade. As our campaigner Gavin Edwards said: "Indonesian rainforest should be home to orang utans not bureaucrats in plush offices!"

Send a message to Margot Wallström, European Commissioner for Environment and ask her to insist that the EU put their money where their mouth is!

http://act.greenpeace.org/ams/e?a=1414&s=gen

FOREST CONSERVATION NEWS TODAY

Forest Networking a Project of Forests.org, Inc.

http://forests.org/ -- Forest Conservation Portal
http://www.EnvironmentalSustainability.info/ -- Eco-Portal
http://www.ClimateArk.org/ -- Climate Change Portal
http://www.WaterConserve.info/ -- Water Conservation Portal

May 5, 2004

OVERVIEW & COMMENTARY by Glen Barry, Ph.D., Forests.org

President Bush continues to lead as if there is no tomorrow, and if he is not stopped, there may not be. Despite pledges to uphold protections for roadless forests, his administration continues its stealthy dismantling of protections for America's last large wild forest landscapes. The Heritage Forests Campaign has issued a report which details the effects upon regional forests if federal protections were to be reversed at
http://www.ourforests.org/localreports/index.html . And the comment period has commenced regarding the Bush administration's proposal to drill for natural gas in the Rocky Mountain Front – one of the most important wilderness areas in the continental United States. Comments regarding this ill-conceived project can be emailed to mt_blackleaf_eis@blm.gov during the government's scoping process which ends on June 1st. These are dangerous times – imperial war, inequity and injustice, combined with failing ecosystems make for a potent mix. It is up to progressive dark greens to enunciate a vision, and organize the movement, that will allow all humanity to emerge from the darkness. g.b.


RELAYED TEXT STARTS HERE:

ITEM #1
Title: Reversal of Roadless Rule Could Devastate National Forests Source: Copyright 2004, Environment News Service
Date: May 4, 2004

WASHINGTON, DC, May 4, 2004 (ENS) - Potential changes by the Bush administration to the roadless rule threaten to destroy the pristine and wild character of more than 32 million acres of public land, according to a series of reports released by a forest advocacy group. The administration has already rolled back roadless protections for Alaska's Tongass National Forests and intends to further revise the rule, which conservationists say is one of the most popular and important conservation initiatives in the nation's history.

"Despite overwhelming public support and their own promises to uphold the Roadless Rule, the Bush administration has been chipping away at the rule for three years, and it is becoming apparent they would like to shred it altogether," said Robert Vandermark, co-director of the Heritage Forests Campaign, which is an alliance of conservation groups.

The alliance released the new reports today to mark the three year anniversary of U.S. Agriculture Department Secretary Ann Veneman's pledge to uphold the provision of the rule, which was put into effect in January 2001 during the last days of the Clinton administration.

Critics contend Veneman has already run afoul of that pledge.

The rule bans road building for commercial activities within some 58
million acres - or one third - of the national forests, but it does allow
new roads if needed to fight fires or to protect public health and safety.

Supporters say it provides vital protection for some of the nation's last remaining wild places and wildlife.

They contend road building in these roadless areas only further subsidizes the timber industry and note that the Forest Service already faces a maintenance backlog of $8.4 billion for its 380,000 mile network of forest roads.

More than two million Americans submitted comments on the rule during the federal rulemaking process, with more than 90 percent in favor of the rule.

But the Bush administration sees the rule as too broad and restrictive. In addition to lifting the rule from the Tongass - the nation's largest national forest - it has proposed amending the regulation to allow individual exemptions for states.

That decision could come as early as this month. In March, Agriculture Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment Mark Rey told Congress that the Forest Service would soon propose its replacement for the Roadless Rule.

Rey noted the legal battles surrounding the rule as good cause for the new policy - nine lawsuits involving seven states have been filed concerning the rule over the past two years.

But critics say the Bush administration ignored a clear opportunity to have the Supreme Court settle the dispute over the rule's legality.

In July a Wyoming federal judge enjoined the rule in Wyoming after ruling it illegally created wilderness areas in violation of the process set up by Congress through the Wilderness Act.

This ruling conflicted with a U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that reversed a similar injunction placed on the rule by an Idaho District Court.

The Bush administration decided not to appeal the Wyoming decision to the Supreme Court and has asked the appeals court not to accept an appeal of the decision by conservation group.

The best way to sort out the rule, administration officials say, is to proceed with its own revisions. The repercussions of those revisions will aid the timber industry at the expense of many of the nation's last remaining wild places, according to the new reports by the Heritage Forests Campaign.

The reports profile roadless areas in national forests across 12 states, documenting acreage that has been lost due to logging and road building prior to the creation of the roadless rule.

They identify examples of roadless areas in national forests that could meet a similar fate if the roadless rule is reversed.

The campaign's analysis of government statistics finds that a reversal of the rule could result in the complete loss of roadless forests in 11 states.

There are nearly 16 million acres of roadless areas in Idaho and Montana's national forests that are protected by the rule.

If it is reversed by the Bush administration, 9.5 million acres, or 60.5 percent of those areas would be immediately made available for logging and road building, according to the campaign.

The reports find 60 percent - 9.5 million acres - of roadless areas in Idaho and Montana's national forests would be made immediately available for logging and road building if the rule is reversed.

The 147,000 acres of roadless areas in Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin would be vulnerable, as would 1.2 million of the 1.9 million acres of Oregon's national forests that are currently protected by the rule.

In addition, the national forests of Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia would immediately face the potential for road building and logging in 76 percent of their remaining roadless areas.

ITEM #2
Title: New Energy Drilling Proposals Target Montana's Front
BLM Starts Process to Evaluate Drilling Permits Located on Public Lands in the Heart of the Rocky Mountain Front
Source: Coalition to Protect the Rocky Mountain Front
Date: April 16, 2004

Choteau, MT -- One of America's most stunning landscapes, Montana's Rocky Mountain Front, faces a new round of natural gas drilling proposals.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) announced late yesterday that it had initiated the review process [Environmental Impact Statement] required for new drilling permits on several existing leases located on public lands in the Blackleaf area, right in the heart of Montana's Front.

"Montanans understand that the Front is a special place, and we've worked together for generations to protect it," said Karl Rappold, a rancher from Dupuyer, Montana. Rappold is a member of the Coalition to Protect the Rocky Mountain Front, an organization of ranchers, hunters, anglers, local business owners, public officials, conservationists, and other Montanans who are working to protect the Front.

"The Front contains some of the best wildlife habitat in the United States," continued Rappold. "It would be a shame to ruin that for, at best, a few days worth of natural gas. The Front is where we work, hunt, and live. It represents the tradition and heritage of Montana – a heritage that many of us would like to see protected for our grandchildren."

Montana's Rocky Mountain Front stretches for over a hundred miles, from Glacier National Park to near Helena, Montana. It is a place of unparalleled natural beauty with massive limestone cliffs that gaze out onto a Great Plains virtually unchanged since the days of Lewis and Clark. With the exception of wild bison, the full complement of native wildlife still inhabits the Front.

The Front's long north-south strip of wildlife habitat is so rich that Montana's Fish, Wildlife and Parks Department consider the Front to be in the top one percent of wildlife habitat in the United States.

The BLM estimates that the analysis alone for the new drilling permits will cost U.S. taxpayers at least $1 million. The only company that is actively considering whether to drill along the Front is Startech Energy Inc., which is based in Calgary, Alberta, and wants to drill three gas wells at one site within the Blindhorse Outstanding Natural Area of the Blackleaf area.

The BLM agrees that very little natural gas rests beneath the Blackleaf area. On January 28, 2002, the BLM's Montana state office released a "Statement of Adverse Energy Impact" for the Blackleaf unit of the Front. The BLM estimated there to be .014-.106 TCF of gas there, the equivalent of two days of natural gas for the country. Furthermore, Startech has estimated only a one-in-four chance of finding economically recoverable gas in the Blackleaf.

"It is sad that the BLM will spend more than one million dollars to do a study that goes against public opinion and common sense," said Chuck Blixrud, an outfitter and owner of the 7 Lazy P Guest Ranch in Choteau, Montana. "That money could be used for other things like protecting the Front, which would be better in the long run for local people and the economy. The Front is where many of us live and work."

Senator Max Baucus also has challenged the validity of the leases. In a March letter to the BLM, Baucus wrote: "I believe it is not appropriate for the BLM to move forward with spending taxpayer dollars on a controversial EIS, addressing development on federal oil and gas leases in the Blackleaf area unless and until your agency can verify that the leases themselves were validly issued."

Montanans have a long history of protecting the Front, dating to the 1913 creation of the state's first game preserve (Sun River) to the 1972 creation of the nation's first citizen initiated Wilderness Area, the Scapegoat Wilderness.

In 1997, the Forest Service placed the Front off limits for any new leasing for 10-15 years. During public consideration of that proposal, more than 80% of the comments received by the Forest Service supported the no new leases decision. This decision, however, did not apply to pre-existing leases such as those in the Blackleaf region where the drilling applications now being considered by the BLM.

The Bureau of Land Management will hold public meetings, all in an open-house format, at five locations across Montana. The meetings will be May 3 in Choteau; May 4 in Great Falls; May 5 in Missoula; May 17 in Helena; and May 20 in Browning. All will be from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. The exact locations of the meetings have yet to be announced.

ITEM #3
Title: Front drilling proposal sparks 12,000 e-mails
Source: Copyright 2004, Great Falls Tribune
Date: May 4, 2004
Byline: SONJA LEE, Tribune Staff Writer

CHOTEAU -- During the first week of a public comment period on a proposal to drill for natural gas in the Rocky Mountain Front, the Bureau of Land Management received more than 12,000 e-mails -- so many electronic comments that the government account is overloaded for now.

But those 12,000 e-mails are just the beginning. About 150 people packed into Choteau High School on Monday to learn more about an environmental review that the BLM must complete before the proposal moves forward. The Choteau meeting was the first in a series of five that will be held this month.

Nearly everyone who wandered the school reviewing information about the project was quick to offer up an opinion.

And as one person would speak against the proposal, another would walk by singing its praises.

Ora Knowlton of Bynum said he wants to see drilling. It will bring jobs and improve Teton County's tax base.

When production was going strong in the Blackleaf Canyon in 1983 and 1984, Teton County received tax revenues between $410,000 and $470,000 each year, according to county records.

"It's about time we take this nation back from the non-productive enviro-freaks," echoed Darell Stott, who was standing with Knowlton.

"Every one of us will gain if we go out there and produce." George and Patti Widener own about 1,800 acres of land adjacent to where the wells would be drilled.

"Does it concern us?" Patti Widener asked as she examined a map about potential impacts to groundwater resources. "It stops our heart."

Widener said in a 12-hour stretch, the couple observed seven grizzly bears in the area where the wells are proposed. When the rigs go up, more than 100 trucks a day could be using the roads, Widener said.

And she is gravely concerned about impacts to wildlife.

Startech Energy, Inc. of Calgary is asking to drill three wells in the BLM's Blind Horse Outstanding Natural Area, about 75 miles northwest of Great Falls.

A well pad to accommodate the rig and additional equipment would be built on four acres at the site. Eight miles of new pipeline, and 200 feet of new road would be needed at the site.

If those three wells produce, Startech also would resume production at other wells in the area. While additional environmental reviews would be needed, the Startech wells also could lead to other "reasonable" development in the future, according to BLM.

Dave Mari, district manager of the BLM office in Lewistown, said the BLM is keenly aware of the controversy surrounding the proposal.

"We know many people are passionate about this area," he said. In 1997, former Lewis and Clark Forest Supervisor Gloria Flora declared the Forest Service land on the Rocky Mountain Front off limits to new oil and gas exploration. The Startech leases also predate the BLM's outstanding natural area designation.

The BLM is holding the public meetings to gather as much information as possible, he said. The e-mail also should be operational again in a day or so.

The BLM will collect public opinion and use it to draft an Environmental Impact Statement. That statement will include "alternatives" for drilling and minimizing impacts to the environment. The draft EIS should be complete in February 2005.

At the Monday meeting, people could view colorful posters about potential impacts to wildlife, vegetation, water and scenery. BLM specialists also were available to discuss additional details about the area and the project.

The BLM also offered a short presentation about the project. Jeff Littlepage of Fairfield said he came to the meeting to learn more about the project. He was surprised to learn that the Startech proposal could spur so much additional drilling.

"A little development is good, but that's a fragile area," he said. Others attended the meeting to make it clear they oppose any development on the Front.

"We're here to tell them, 'No means no,'" said Ric Valois, a member of the militant conservation group Environmental Rangers. "As long as I am breathing, they will not drill."

Dusty Crary, who leases land in the area, said he doesn't believe new and improved "technology" will reduce the potential impacts. He said he would be impressed by technology if it brought a sizeable wind energy operation.

"They also talk about new jobs, but what about the jobs that are already here?" he said.

Crary, a rancher, said a large part of his marketing strategy is the wildness of the area. Local outfitters and tourists also need to be considered.

Ray Anderson worked on a rig in the 60s.

"The engines would be revving up, and the deer would just walk by," he said.

Anderson said he doesn't believe drilling will have a negative impact on wildlife.

Anderson and Dan Lindseth both also said Teton County must capitalize on its resources to help the tax base.

ITEM #4

FOREST CONSERVATION ACTION ALERT

Protect Montana's Rocky Mountain Front

By Forests.org, Inc. - http://forests.org/

May 10, 2004

TAKE ACTION:

Protest Bush's "Leave No Wilderness Behind" Energy Policy
http://forests.org/action/america/

Montana's Rocky Mountain Front is one of America's most important wilderness areas. But its continued existence as a large and operational ecosystem is threatened by the Bush Administration's rapacious "leave no wilderness behind" energy policy. The Front is where the east slope of the Montana Rockies - stretching for more than a hundred miles - suddenly merges with the prairies. The area is inhabited by a range of wildlife including grizzly bears, elk and bighorn sheep. Despite its environmental importance and fragility, President Bush is aggressively seeking to open this treasured natural landscape to oil and gas drilling. Last month the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) initiated the review process required for new drilling permits on several existing leases located in the region's Blackleaf area. According to the government's own data, the Blackleaf leases contain less than a day's worth of natural gas and 15 minutes of oil for the nation. Let the Bureau of Land Management know that you do not support gas and oil exploration in Montana's Rocky Mountain Front. Further, make it known that the U.S. needs an energy policy that does not destroy large, operational ecosystems at home or abroad; and which is forward looking, emphasizing conservation and renewable energy.

Take Action and Forward Widely until the end of May, 2004
http://forests.org/action/america/

Notes: Because the alert is part of an official government feedback process, some original comments are required. The alert forwards to an updated appeal to Russia to ratify the Kyoto Treaty - a decision widely expected in coming weeks.

Forest Networking a Project of Forests.org, Inc.

http://forests.org/ -- Forest Conservation Portal
http://www.EnvironmentalSustainability.info/ -- Eco-Portal
http://www.ClimateArk.org/ -- Climate Change Portal
http://www.WaterConserve.info/ -- Water Conservation Portal

May 21, 2004
OVERVIEW & COMMENTARY by Glen Barry, Ph.D., Forests.org

The future of the Amazon rainforest is critically threatened by expanded infrastructure development that dramatically increases physical access to the Amazonian frontier. Rainforest loss and diminishment in the Amazon impacts the well-being and ecological sustainability of local peoples, Brazilians and all citizens of the World. Below is an update from Science magazine regarding the threats posed by new roads and other infrastructure development plans in the heart of the Amazon. Forests.org has been instrumental in bringing these scientific findings to a wider audience, and advocating for cancellation of the ill-conceived development plans.

In 2002 and 2003, the rate of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon climbed to nearly 2.4 million hectares per year, driven by land speculation along the routes of new roads, cattle ranching, and soybean farming. This equals 11 football fields a minute. While the Brazilian government has stepped up satellite monitoring and involved additional ministries to address deforestation, they have steadfastly refused to cancel or significantly revise the large-scale infrastructure development plans predicted to eliminate the Amazon's large, intact and unfragmented rainforest expanses.

All governments have a profound responsibility to protect, conserve and restore natural habitats sufficient to maintain ecosystems and their species. No ecology, no economy or anything else. Given its jurisdiction over the Amazon, the Brazilian government and people are sacredly obligated to safeguard this global ecological engine - stewardship they are failing to provide. I concur with the leading rainforest scientists below, that by failing to "curtail its aggressive plans for infrastructure expansion, Brazil will fail to address one of the most critical root causes of Amazonian deforestation." Loss of the Amazon as an operable, non-fragmented whole will severely biologically impoverish the Earth - and contribute significantly to the possibility of global ecological Armageddon. Brazil and the World need an intact Amazon to live well and prosper. g.b.


Deforestation in Amazonia
Source: Copyright 2004, Science, Vol 304, Issue 5674, 1109-1111 Date: May 21, 2004

In recent years, we and others have identified critical threats posed to the forests of Amazonia by the Brazilian government's plans to
dramatically expand highways and other major infrastructure projects in the region (1-6). Our conclusions have been disputed by elements of the Brazilian government (7-10), which assert that a key assumption of our spatial models--that new roads and highways will continue to promote large-scale Amazonian deforestation, as they have done in the past--no longer applies. This is so, they argue, because of improvements in frontier governance and environmental-law enforcement, as well as changes in Brazilian public attitudes toward forests (7-10). As a consequence, the Brazilian government is proceeding with the largest expansion of highways, roads, power lines, gas lines, hydroelectric reservoirs, railroads, and river-channelization projects in the history of the Amazon (1-6).

In 2002 and 2003, the rate of deforestation in Brazilian Amazonia climbed to nearly 2.4 million hectares per year (see figure)--equivalent to 11 football fields a minute. This increase mostly resulted from rapid destruction of seasonal forest types in the southern and eastern parts of the basin; relative to preceding years (1990-2001), forest loss shot up by 48% in the states of Pará, Rondônia, Mato Grosso, and Acre (11). The increase was evidently driven by rising deforestation and land speculation along new highways and planned highway routes (12), and the dramatic growth of Amazonian cattle ranching (13) and industrial soybean farming (6, 14). Soybean farms promote some forest clearing directly, but have a much greater impact on deforestation by consuming cleared land, savanna, and ecotonal forests, thereby pushing ranchers and slash-and-burn farmers ever deeper into the forest frontier. Equally important, soybean farming provides a key economic and political impetus for massive infrastructure projects, which accelerate deforestation by other actors (6, 14).

Anticipating public alarm about the new deforestation figures, the Brazilian government recently announced new measures designed to slow Amazon forest loss. These measures include increased satellite monitoring of deforestation and the involvement of additional ministries--not just the Ministry of Environment--in efforts to reduce illegal deforestation and forest burning (12). These measures, in concert with the establishment of new protected or multiple-use areas in Amapa, Amazonas, and Acre, are a move in the right direction.

The new measures do not go far enough, however. They fail to address one of the most critical drivers of forest destruction: the rapid proliferation of new highways and other infrastructure, which greatly increases physical access to the Amazonian frontier. The Brazilian government plans to create interministerial working groups to recommend ways to reduce or mitigate project impacts, but is not considering the cancellation or significant delay of any major project. Indeed, just days after announcing the new anti-deforestation package, Brazilian President Lula demanded that his federal ministers find ways to circumvent environmental and other impediments to stalled infrastructure projects throughout the country, including 18 hydroelectric dams and 10,000 km of highways (15).

In the Amazon, new transportation projects frequently lead to a dramatic rise in illegal deforestation, logging, mining, and hunting activities (1-6). If Brazil criss-crosses the basin with thousands of kilometers of such projects, the net result, our models suggest, will be not only further increases in forest destruction, but fragmentation of surviving forests on an unprecedented spatial scale (1, 5). Many of the government's recently announced measures to slow forest loss are positive steps, but if it does not curtail its aggressive plans for infrastructure expansion, Brazil will fail to address one of the most critical root causes of Amazonian deforestation.

William F. Laurance,*
Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute,
Apartado 2072,
Balboa,
Panama.

Ana K. M. Albernaz,
Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi,
Avenida Perimetral 190,
Belém, PA 66077-530,
Brazil.

Philip M. Fearnside,
Departamento de Ecologia,
Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia,
C.P. 478,
Manaus,
AM 69011-970,
Brazil.

Heraldo L. Vasconcelos,
Instituto de Biologia,
Universidade Federal de Uberlândia,
C.P. 593, Uberlândia,
MG 38400-902,
Brazil.

Leandro V. Ferreira
Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi,
Avenida Perimetral 190,
Belém, PA 66077-530,
Brazil.

*To whom correspondence should be addressed.
E-mail: laurancew@tivoli.si.edu

References and Notes

1. W. F. Laurance et al., Science 291, 438 (2001).

2. W. F. Laurance, A. K. M. Albernaz, C. Da Costa, Environ. Conserv. 28, 305 (2001).

3. G. Carvalho, A. C. Barros, P. Moutinho, D. C. Nepstad, Nature 409, 131(2001).

4. D. C. Nepstad et al., Forest Ecol. Manage. 154, 295 (2001).

5. W. F. Laurance et al., J. Biogeogr. 29, 737 (2002).

6. P. M. Fearnside, Environ. Manage. 30, 748 (2002).

7. D. Weber, "Ministério contesta estudo sobre devastação," O Estado de S. Paulo, 21 January 2001.

8. S. S. do Amaral, "Threat to the Amazon," The Independent, 26 January 2001.

9. R. Goidanich, Science dEbates, 26 January 2001
( http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/eletters/291/5503/438 ).

10. J. P. Silveira et al., Science 292, 1651 (2001).

11. The net deforestation rate in these four states increased from 1.43 million ha year-1 from 1990-2001 to 2.12 million ha year-1 in 2002-2003, based on data from the Brazilian National Space Agency
( http://www.inpe.br ). Deforestation data for 2003 are a preliminary estimate.

12. Grupo Permanente de Trabalho Interministerial para a Redução dos Índices de Desmatamento da Amazônia Legal, Plano de Ação para a Prevenção e Controle do Desmatamento da Amazônia Legal (Presidência da República, Casa Civil, Brasília, 2004).

13. D. Kaimowitz, B. Mertens, S. Wunder, P. Pacheco, Hamburger Connection Fuels Amazon Destruction (Tech. Rep., Center for International Forest Research, Bogor, Indonesia, 2004).

14. P. M. Fearnside, Environ. Conserv. 28, 23 (2001).

15. "Lula quer a retomada de obras paralisadas," Amazonas em Tempo (Manaus, Brazil), 21 March 2004.

LATimes editorial

May 18, 2004

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-forest18may18,1,1515499.story

The smallest national forest in California is also the most pressed, with three rapidly growing counties nipping at its mountain flanks. Like its bigger siblings, Cleveland National Forest is a "Land of Many Uses," but considering how little land must serve dense populations on all sides, its best uses are wilderness preservation and environmentally friendly recreation.

In its 15-year draft management plan for Southern California's national forests, the U.S. Forest Service has drawn up six options for the Cleveland. Two of them, Alternatives 3 and 6, adequately protect the oasis of fragrant pine and sage from proposals to blast tunnels through the mountains, carve highways into the wilderness, string high-voltage utility lines for 28 miles and push water up the eastern hillside from Lake Elsinore for a profitable power project.

The Forest Service, though, has tentatively conferred "preferred" status on Alternative 2, which would allow more intensive uses, including those listed above. That won't work for a forest this size, at the juncture of Orange, Riverside and San Diego counties, where the combined populations top 7.5 million and are growing.

Unless enough people protest, the preferred plan will be the default.

Alternative 2 and the government's preferred options for the other three national forests in the region would also dramatically increase off-roading, with 70,000 more acres set aside for such use, much of it in environmentally delicate areas. The Forest Service defends the proposed increase, saying it would protect the land by keeping vehicles on designated trails. That is no more than a hope. In fact, one possibility in this plan is for the Forest Service to legalize trails carved out illegally by off-road vehicles, providing reinforcement for more incursions. The Forest Service concedes that the vehicles increase the risk of wildfire and that it lacks the manpower to police them now, let alone on tens of thousands more acres.

Agency spokesmen stress that these are only drafts and vow to take public comments seriously. At a later point, they could switch to another alternative or modify any of the existing options, with the regional forester making the final decision. Southern California residents have only themselves to blame if they don't let government know what they want in their diminishing forests.


To Take Action: The forest plan website, http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/scfpr/ , has links to view the draft plans, find out about public meetings and send comments electronically. Public comments may also be mailed to Southern California Forest Plan Revisions, USDA Forest Service Content Analysis Center, P.O. Box 22777, Salt Lake City, Utah 84122.

Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times


Informant: Teresa Binstock

May 13, 2004

By CAROLE MIGDEN

The latest attack on California's environment by big business is being waged right now in Humboldt County.

Five years ago, Pacific Lumber Company signed a historic agreement with the state of California and the federal government to preserve the Headwaters Forest in Humboldt. The core of this balanced agreement allowed the state to purchase 7,500 acres of ancient redwood groves from Pacific Lumber, and placed strong restrictions on logging for an additional 210,000 acres of Pacific Lumber's land.

I was proud to play a part in the original agreement when I authored the legislation to appropriate $240 million toward the purchase of the forest. It was a hard-fought win and a true victory for a national treasure.

Now, Pacific Lumber wants to renege on that agreement. After receiving a fair purchase price for Headwaters, Pacific Lumber is using its own scientists to support its claim that new methods of logging will allow the company to expand logging in sensitive areas beyond the limits agreed upon in the plan.

Pacific Lumber is now proposing to loosen restrictions on 30,000 acres to allow logging on steep slopes, during dangerous wet weather, and near streams and watersheds. It is also proposing changes to road improvement requirements, restrictions in streamside buffers, and to the cost and requirements of future scientific studies.

If adopted, these loosened rules would result in increased sediment runoff in streams, fewer environmental protections and greater danger for already threatened species

These changes come on the heels of four years of steady assault on California's natural resources by the Bush administration which have weakened clean air and clean water, opened up our national forests to expanded drilling and logging, rolled back rules banning mining next to streams and called for amending the historic Northwest Forest plan.

I'm very disappointed that Pacific Lumber wants to go back on its word. Back in 1998 and 1999, we forged the agreement in a way that allowed Pacific Lumber to keep its mills open in an environmentally sensitive and sustainable manner. It also put to bed years of sustained warfare over the divisive issue of how to preserve redwood forests while balancing the needs of our growing state. We had an agreement then, and we should keep it today.

While we should all be insulted by Pacific Lumber's attempt to break its word, our greatest responsibility is to the Headwaters Forest.

The 2,000-year-old trees at stake are far too precious and irreplaceable to be subject to the large-scale logging which Pacific Lumber desires. The Habitat Protection Plan preserved the native habitat for the endangered marbled murrelet, northern spotted owl and coho salmon.

It is important to have regular scientific review of remaining logging operations, which was a part of the original agreement. But any scientific analysis that occurs should be done by an independent, outside auditor, not by Pacific Lumber's own scientists. The Headwaters Forest is an environmental jewel that belongs to everyone and should be treated that way.

We held up our end of the bargain; now I hope Pacific Lumber will do the same.

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/opinion/columns/13close.html


Informant: Nicholas Wilson

Forms and reviews would be streamlined in exchange for a $10-million hike in fees.

From Associated Press

May 15, 2004
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-timber15may15,1,6443239.story

SACRAMENTO -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to make it easier for timber companies to get approval for logging plans in exchange for a $10-million increase in logging fees.

In exchange for imposing the higher fees, the state should cut its
"overly burdensome" bureaucratic reviews of logging plans, mimicking the one- or two-page applications and brief one-stop reviews required by neighboring Oregon, the Republican governor said in his revised budget plan Thursday.

California requires that detailed timber harvest plans be prepared by
licensed foresters and other professionals. The typical plan runs 100 to 500 pages, costs $42,954 and waits 65 days for state approval -- a delay that climbs to an average 85 days for logging plans along the
environmentally sensitive northern coast.

Schwarzenegger's plan amounts to "massive regulatory relief for the
industry," objected the Sierra Club's Paul Mason. "Oregon has extremely lax forest practice rules. They're certainly not the state we want to be emulating."

Though California Forestry Assn. President Dave Bischel liked the idea of trimming the state's review, he objected to paying the $10 million in higher fees. The industry shouldn't have to pay more than the actual cost of reviewing timber harvest plans, he said, and that cost should drop considerably if the process is altered as Schwarzenegger proposes.

Schwarzenegger wants to let harvest plan approvals remain in effect
longer; expand a single plan to include entire watersheds; and reduce the paperwork. Plans still would be reviewed by the departments of Conservation and Fish and Game and the State Water Resources Control Board, though environmental groups contend those reviews are often ineffective.

"Details of that have to be worked out, but certainly the intention is
to maintain a high level of environmental review," said Bill Snyder, the forestry department's resources chief.

A second Schwarzenegger initiative would spend $39 million over five years for prescribed burns and other forest thinning to protect Sierra Nevada waterways. The state forestry department proposes to thin 105,000 acres to protect 1 million acres of watersheds.

"It's a very important program, and an example of the state thinking
creatively" to find fire prevention funds, said Jay Watson, director of the Wilderness Society's wild land fire program.

Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times

Informant: Teresa Binstock

Nach Angaben der UNO-Umweltorganisation UNEP sind mindestens 600 der 1.200 weltweit vorkommenden Bambus-Pflanzen massiv vom Aussterben bedroht. Die Bambuswälder sind aber nicht nur für den Menschen, sondern auch für die Tierwelt ein wichtiges Habitat, berichtet BBC-Online. Bedroht ist auch der Handel mit Bambusprodukten, der immerhin jährlich Umsätze von rund 2,7 Mrd. Dollar bringt.

Die ganze Nachricht im Internet:

http://www.ngo-online.de/ganze_nachricht.php4?Nr=8432