Tuesday,  28/ 3/ 95 -  9 pm:
g'day glen,  
hope you and yours are well. read this interesting Sydney Morning Herald article today on how publishers are putting out their stuff on the worldwide web (ie, mags, journals, etc) and making a buck out of them - even with no adverts! thanks again for putting wrr about for us. see you.  
take risks, but take care...        rob kennedy 
Published by the Rainforest Information Centre *********************************************** 
The publisher of World Rainforest Report, the Rainforest Information Centre in Australia, has combined forces with Ecological Enterprises in the U.S. in order to bring you this electronically-networked version of our magazine. Once again, we have been somewhat tardy in uploading this edition, number  30, but you can expect to continue receiving it regularly every  3 months. 
The matter of urgency in terms of distribution of WRR is of great import in regard to the hard-news stories, however the first two items, by David Comey and Bill Moyer are quality articles of timeless value and significance. They deserve to be shared far and wide. 
Please remember that RIC's campaign efforts are in part supported by our sale of snail-mail subscriptions, so please complete and return the form at the end of this magazine if you are an activist/researcher/caring person who needs hard copy. 
WRR is published by the Rainforest Information Centre, Lismore Australia. To Subscribe (ie: for hard copy, by snail mail): send $ 25 Australian to RIC, p.o. box  368 Lismore  2480 Australia; ph:+ 61  66  218  505, fx:+ 61  66  222  339, email: rainfaus@peg.apc.org 
IN this issue: 
TELL THE TRUTH - David Comey on Successful Propaganda 
PLAYING TO WIN - Part  2 of Bill Moyer's Guide to Successful Activism 
ACTION PAGES - The hard news on what's going down and where; write a letter of protest! 
AUSTRALIA - Woodchips: "It's not jobs or the environment; its both or neither" 
Mexico - The Zapatistas and the global implications of their struggle 
The Philippines - Restoration of the Ormoc Watershed 
Timber Labelling - Indonesia Gets Ready 
Our apologies for the lateness of this edition. By rights it should have appeared at the end of last year, but that was not possible due to staff shortages and other commitments. But you'll still get your money's worth: when you subscribe, you get four issues, regardless of the time-frame. 
Playing to Win Part  2: 
This is the concluding part of a summary of a paper by Bill Moyer , "The Practical Strategist". It contains invaluable advice on how to run a successful social movement. The first part appeared in WRR29 (Sept.  1994).  
Tell the Truth 
A delightful speech made by anti-nuclear campaigner David Comey to representatives of the nuclear industry in the  1970's. Environmentalists often yield to the temptation of making exaggerated claims and, in doing so, undermine their own credibility and the credibility of their allies. Eco-Scam by Ronald Bailey is an example of an attempt to undermine the credibility of environmentalists. Comey makes a powerful case for accurate, measured understatement. 
Education Supplement Next Issue 
There's no Education Supplement in this edition due to staff shortages. Not many people want to work for nothing at the moment. We hope to bring you a supplement of solutions to the problem of rainforest destruction in WRR31. 
Action Pages 
Once again this edition contains an exciting centrefold of Action Pages. Letter writing is a powerful tool for change and we urge you to send of a few missile-like missals to your favourite politician or powerbroker. 
 -- John Revington - Editor 
Deadline for articles for next edition: May25  
World Rainforest Report welcomes contributions, preferably typed, emailed or on floppy disk (pc). 
Opinions expressed in World Rainforest Report are not necessarily those of the editor or the Rainforest Information Centre. 
Printed on  100% recycled paper 
Tell the Truth 
by David Comey 
The Greek playwright Aristophanes once wrote: "Wise men often learn from their enemies." I will assume you are wise men; I think you probably assume I am your enemy. 
  When Carl Goldstein called me two weeks ago to invite me to give a talk to you [the Atomic Industrial Forum] about the nuclear industry's lack of credibility, he said he did not want me to spend thirty minutes flinging your past mistakes in your faces; something positive, such  as what  the industry could now do to improve its credibility. He also wanted me to "spill my secrets" on how I operate. 
  (I later ran this by the Ruling Praesidium of the Anti-Nuclear Cabal, and there was some consternation that I would even consider revealing my methods. I later received a cable instructing me, "Tell them nothing they can use." Although there is an old Neapolitan adage, "You surrender your liberty to him to whom you tell your secrets," I have decided that I can safely tell you what they are.) 
  Once I realized what Carl Goldstein wanted, I told him, "If you want to know how I do it, and how you're going to have to do it to be believed, then I am going to recite Crossman to you." 
  "Who is Crossman?" he said. 
  R.H.S. Crossman was the senior British officer in charge of Allied psychological warfare in Europe during the Second World War. Almost universally, he is regarded as the leading propagandist of that period. One British leader has stated flatly, "I would say that most, if not all, of what the Americans learned about psychological warfare they learned from Dick Crossman." An American colleague once told me, "I personally think our greatest propagandist was Dick Crossman, because he had an insidious mind. It was this type of lovable and likeable but extremely insidious personality that made him tremendously effective for psychological warfare." 
  Crossman was not an advertising or public relations technician; he was an Oxford don, where he had taken his bachelor's degree in Greek, Latin and philosophy. He was elected a fellow of  New College even before he took his degree in  1929 and he spent the next ten years at Oxford lecturing on Plato's Republic and Marx's early philosophical works. Until his death last year, he had been a member of Parliament since  1945. At the present time the British government is suing under the Official  Secrets Act to prevent the publication of his memoirs. 
  The following exposition of Crossman's principles of successful propaganda are taken from my notes on the lecture he gave at Oxford during the Michaelmas term in  1953. The quotes are Crossman; the Capitalized interpretations are mine. 
  As you listen to Crossman's principles, I am sure you will understand what the French writer Fontenelle meant when he said, "Truth enters the mind so naturally that when one hears it for the first time, it seems one is only remembering what one already knows." 
 1. The Basis for All Successful Propaganda is the Truth. 
  It is a complete delusion to think of the brilliant propagandist as being a professional liar. The brilliant propagandist is the man who tells the truth, and tells it in such a way that the recipient does not think that he is receiving any propaganda. The art of the propagandist is never to be thought a prop- agandist, but seem to be a bluff, simple, honourable enemy who would never think of descending to the level of propaganda. 
 2. The Key to Successful Propaganda is Accurate Information.   
  If you give a man the correct information for seven years, he may believe the incorrect information on the first day of the eighth year when it is necessary, from your point of view, that he should do so. Your first job is to build the credibility and authenticity of your propaganda, and persuade the enemy to trust you although you are his enemy. 
 3. The Most Successful Propagandist is the Person Who Cares About Education. 
  The job of propaganda is not merely to enter into some arid debate with the Government of the other side; it is to stimulate in people of  the country thought for themselves, to make them begin to be not cogs in a machine or units of a collective organ-ization, but individuals. Individualism is the first act of disloyalty to a totalitarian government, and every individual who begins to feel he has a right to have a view is already committing an act of disloyalty. 
 4. To Do Propaganda Well, One Must Not Fall in Love with It. 
  In the last war the British did better propaganda than any other nation in the world. We British were ashamed of our propaganda and therefore took more trouble to conceal what we were doing. The Russians undoubtedly did the worst propaganda during the War, and the Americans in many ways had the failings of the Russians in the propaganda field. The Germans, because they  loved propaganda, could not do it. Lord Haw-Haw was a disaster to the Germans because he was obviously a propagandist.  
  5. A Successful Propagandist Cannot Afford To Make Mistakes. 
  Ten good truthful news stories will be cancelled by one mistake. We found this throughout the war with Germany. If one mistake was made about something which the Germans could check, they would write off the rest of our propaganda as lies. Therefore, that which is written about what goes on in an enemy country must not only be checked and double-checked for fact, but it must be written in such a way that it sounds credible to the enemy and  not to us. 
 6. The Propaganda Must Be Credible To the Other Side, Not Your Own. 
  If I write a leaflet which members of Parliament will describe as good propoganda, it will probably read as such crude "propoganda"  that it raises the morale of the enemy. In order to make it really credible to the enemy, it must sound a long way off from what most members of Parliament regard as "the good tough stuff" to tell the enemy. All British leaflets were classified as "secret".  Members of Parliament, if they could have discussed in Parliament what we were saying to the Germans, would have complained that the propoganda organisation was "appeasing" the Germans. It was essential to make leaflets credible to a German -- not to the House of Commons. 
 7. It is the Understatement Which Succeeds Best. 
  Our bulletins in German were the most objective sober bulletins of all that were put out by the BBC. We could not afford to be caught in any inaccuracy. The German listeners would not swallow anything, because they were on the lookout to prove us liars. We had to be  101 percent accurate. We had to claim less than we actually did. There is nothing more effective than saying there has been a moderately severe raid on Essen, when  2, 000 people have actually been killed. That sort of thing gives the enemy cold shivers. The BBC once reported that after a certain mission to the Continent seven British planes had failed to return. The German radio had just described the same incident, stating that five planes had failed to return. In t
his case we were merely accurate: two planes which the Germans had seen leaving the continent were already crippled and failed to get to England.         
  The psychological effect on the German public, however, was far greater than mere apparent accuracy would ever have achieved. It demonstrated dramatically our capacity to go beyond what was necessary in the direction of candour. 
  That is all there is to say. Some of you may be wondering what all this talk about "the enemy" and "propaganda" has to do with selling nuclear power to the American public. Is there a connection, or is Comey slightly crazy? 
  Due to past mendacious practices of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, the Atomic Energy Commission, the reactor vendors, the electrical utilities, and such groups as the American Nuclear Society and the Atomic Industrial Forum, there now exists an adversary relationship between the `industry' on the one side and a large segment of the American public on the other. You have gotten yourselves into the posture of trying to persuade a hostile audience that does not believe you or what you say. 
  Furthermore, if you do not feel that your public relations efforts are "propaganda," you are focusing on the incorrect pejorative connotation of  the word and losing sight of its origin, the Congregatio de propaganda fide (Congregation for Propagating the Faith) established by Pope Gregory XV. 
  As Crossman said, convincing an adversary by bombarding him with the truth is the only effective propaganda, so why be ashamed of doing it? As long as someone understands "propaganda" in the original and Crossmanian sense of the word, I have no problem considering myself a propagandist when I disseminate information and facts about the unresolved problems in the nuclear power program. 
  If you still feel uncomfortable about classifying yourself as a propagandist, and prefer terms of which public relations specialists are so fond, then think of Crossman as having told you how to "communicate" or "get your message across." For that is exactly what he has done: violate any of his strictures and your credibility will be impaired, your efficaciousness vitiated. 
  Although I prefer the word "propaganda" for purposes of accuracy and brevity, I realize that by using it I am making you nervous, so let us talk about "being credible." 
  Obviously Crossman was enormously successful at being credible. The BBC is still trusted abroad because of the way he ran it during the War. One need only to talk to American and British intelligence operatives today to realize that thirty years later Crossman is still regarded as the apotheosis of credibility to a hostile audience. 
  Prior to preparing this talk, I had not looked at my Crossman lecture notes since  1959, when I did a series of lectures on overt and covert psychological warfare techniques for the US army. I could not help noting as I reviewed my notes that unconsciously I have been using Crossman in my own work for the last seven years as an environmentalist. In fact, I would say that the several occasions when something I did backfired were due to my straying from a straightforward application of Crossman's principles. 
  There are basically two reasons why I have unknowingly adhered to these principles. One is that I could hardly do otherwise, since I am employed by a public interest organization that would not countenance any use of clandestine dirty tricks. The second reason is more pragmatic: I have found that the only way to be credible with the media and the public is to tell the truth. I have seen some rather charismatic figures get caught out in a purposeful lie, and I do not think their credibility has ever recovered from it. Newsmen have a very low threshold for someone who tells them lies or represents himself to be something he is not. They tend not to cover him thereafter. 
  I know one utility executive who is not considered credible because in  1969 and  1970 he swore his company could never burn low-sulphur coal in its power plant boilers. "Never" lasted about six months, and now his pronouncements about nuclear plants are received with commensurate skepticism. 
  As Demosthenes said, "The facts speak for themselves." 
  I find Crossman's principles  2,  5 and  7 particularly salient advice for building credibility. One must have absolutely accurate information and must make no mistake that undercuts everything else one is saying. 
  I happen to have a network of "whistleblowers" inside the nuclear industry. They occasionally furnish me with information that otherwise would not reach the public. They work for the vendors, the utilities, and the regulatory agencies. Were the nuclear industry to air its problems candidly and cease stifling dissent, the need for these whistle-blowers would disappear and my sources would dry up. These people call me or mail me internal documents because they feel that vital decisions are being made without proper debate or even public awareness. 
  It is always tempting to yield to the argument that these items must be used immediately before they lose their "news value." Yet I find it advantageous to check them out discreetly with other sources to verify them. This can take a long time, but it always pays off. Frankly, I do not feel I can afford to make mistakes with the press and the public. 
  I also think it useful to understate, as Crossman recommends. In a recent study on nuclear plant reliability, I sought to give the industry every benefit of  the doubt in my selection of data and methods of computation, so as to leave no room for accusation that my data were biased. 
  Recently an industry journalist published an attack on my study, warning reporters to beware of it because anyone examining the "facts" would see they disprove my study. Unfortunately for him, he failed to follow his own journalistic advice, as I pointed out in my rebuttal. 
  Obviously I have a great deal more flexibility to do these sorts of things at BPI than does a spokesman for a nuclear utility. Until a utility lets its public relations staff operate independently in accordance with Crossman's principle  6, its attempts at credibility will be stillborn. What sounds like "good tough stuff" to the average utility executive is likely to sound ludicrous to the public. Moreover, my experience has been that the "nuclear news coordinator" at a utility is often the last  person to have access to the facts. This means that he is always behind me vis-a-vis reporters, because I often get the facts directly from the scene before or shortly after the utility management does. 
  Whenever I issue a news release on a nuclear power issue, I always end it with the names, titles and telephone numbers (sometimes home numbers, if it is on a weekend) of the top management people at the facility and the AEC who have knowledge of  the facts. 
  I do this for two reasons. One is that I feel it is more important for the reporters to get the other side of the story, and get it accurately, than for them just to print my side of the story. The second reason is that reporters appreciate being referred to persons who have the facts rather than to a "nuclear news coordinator" who does not know what is going on and must constantly check with management before answering questions. 
  I recently received a copy of Lee Everett's internal memorandum on the Atomic Industrial Forum's Public Affairs and Information Program, which talks about ghost-writing articles for prominent pro-nuclear scientists. If you people really think you can successfully avoid detection in this heinous clandestine operation, you are wrong. 
  There is an old German proverb that says, "Good merchandise sells itself;  bad merchandise has to be palmed off on someone."Until the nuclear industry has viable merchandise to sell, the American public is not going to buy, regardless of the intensity of your public-relations campaign. 
  Crossman says the successful propagandist is the person who cares about educating the public. He wants people to think for themselves, as individuals, and not accept the party line. That is hardly a  philosophy many industry executives embrace; they want the public to "accept" nuclear power, and that is quite another thing. 
  Should you wish to become credible, a propitious beginning would be to start telling the truth. 
  Admit that low-level radiation can cause cancer and long-term genetic effects. 
  Confess that important safety research on light-water reactors has never been done, and that some has been done improperly. 
  Stop hiding your computer codes under the cloak of a "proprietary" designation and let them be analysed by the academic and engineering community at large. 
  Admit that you are not enchanted with the reliability and deliverability of presently operating nuclear plants. 
  Reveal all of the costs of nuclear-generated electricity, both present and twenty years into the future. 
Do an energetics input-output model of the nuclear program as a whole; then do a comparable one for alternative energy sources and reveal which one comes out ahead on this basis. 
  Tell the public why  you have not been able to reprocess spent fuel, and what impact the lack of sufficient storage pools may have over the next ten years. 
  Talk about the ethics of our consuming electricity from fission reactors for  50 years and saddling  20, 000 future generations with the social and environmental problems of perpetually caring for the actinide-contaminated high-level radioactive wastes. 
  Discuss the threats to democratic society posed by a plutonium economy. 
  You may, like Solzhenitsyn, ask: "If the first tiny droplet of truth has exploded like a psychological bomb, what will happen in our country when waterfalls of Truth come crashing down?" 
  But I do not believe you have a choice. 
  We critics dicuss these problems all the time. 
  The more you ignore us, the less credible you become. 
  Perhaps you fear that a full and frank discussion of these issues will result in no further use of light-water fission reactors for generating electricity. 
  So be it. That is the price of living in a democratic republic. 
  "But the nation's economic health demands use of nuclear power, regardless of how a majority of the public feels about it!" some of you may say. 
  Eureka! You have just had an insight into your own totalitarian tendencies. 
  I hope I have fulfilled Carl Goldstein's request that I talk both about how I operate and how the nuclear industry might become more credible. 
  I rather suspect I may have also complied with my cable instructions not to tell you anything you will use. I have told you all you need to know, namely Crossman's principles, but I doubt that more than a handful of you believe me, and I am reasonably confident not a one of you will use one bit of it. 
[David Comey  1936- 1979] 
"Tell the Truth" was published in Earthworks: Ten Years on the Environmental Front (Friends of the Earth Publication edited by Mary Lou Van Deveneter,  1980). A companion article by Jim Harding described David Comey, the human. Some extracts: 
". . . I found a plumpish, balding  39-year-old in a handmade  three-piece suit with Gucci loafers, a bowler hat, and gold watch chain. . . he toted a large leather briefcase with the tag CIA Legal Department underneath the handles." 
"David Comey made his name as a clever populariser of wickedly technical issues. He was nuclear power's Ralph Nader to the Wall Street Journal before the real number joined the campaign in  1973." 
". . there were two traits in David that stunned me and taught me many lessons. The first was his scrupulous honesty, and the second his utterly unscrupulous showmanship. Beneath it all was great goodwill." 
"I know no-one who has done more to hasten the demise of the industry than Comey. . . . He disliked nuclear power most because the people using it lied and covered up key problems." 
"Before Comey delivered ["Tell the Truth"] to the Atomic Industrial Forum, he checked its contents with the ruling praesidium. When he passed it by me, he enclosed a copy of a BPI memo from June Rosner, director of public information: 
Message: David! Are you seriously going to read that thing to those people? They'll kill you! . . . 
Reply: Yes I am., The CIA has [a list of] AIF's directors, so if anything happens to me, the old boy network will take care of them. 
M: I think its the most patronising speech I've ever read; can't  you tone it down at least? 
R: It is meant to be; otherwise they might pay attention and use Crossman against us. It is little more than an esoteric exercise in mindfucking . . . Your problem is you have not been watching 'Monty Python's Flying Circus' enough to appreciate a real send-up." 
The Process of Movement Success 
Few activists understand the complexities of achieving successful social change and this greatly limits their potential for success. In WRR29, Bill Moyer talked about adopting a realistic belief in movement success, and about the Four Roles of Activism. In this concluding article, he deals with the concept of Participatory Democracy and with the Eight Stages of Successful Social Movements.  
Successful social movements promote a long-term process. First, the whole population is alerted to and educated about the social problem. Then a growing majority of public opposition creates the conditions which ultimately force the creation of new public policies. 
Activists in a new movement discover that there are many connected problems and larger structural causes that must be addressed. They also discover that the powerholders do not change their minds when presented with the facts. Instead, they fight against the movement, even against a new majority public opinion in order to preserve their privilege and the status quo. 
 Success is not an event; it is a process. 
Success is neither an event nor a new policy decision but a long, complex process that keeps evolving and is difficult to perceive. Activists therefore need to know what the normal road of success looks like, and to be able to plan, evaluate and conduct a social movement so that it  progresses in a satisfactory manner along that road. 
The MAP  model is a set of tools that activists can use to analyse the progress of their movement from a strategic viewpoint. The model allows movements to understand their history, identify past successes, locate their position on the road of movement success and plan how to achieve their goals. 
The Grand Strategy: Participatory Democracy 
The Grand Strategy describes how the parts and programs of the movement combine in one big map for reaching the goal. A mutual understanding of the grand strategy provides activists in various organisations and sub-movements with a common basis to evaluate the past and set the course for the future. Without a broadly accepted grand strategy, there is no basis for controlling and eliminating ideologies and actions that undercut the chances for a movement success. 
The Grand Strategy Process 
Although direct action (analyses, speeches, demonstrations, civil disobedience) is often focussed on  the powholders, the real purpose is not to force the powerholders to immediately change their polices, but to put a public spotlight on the problem in order to win over and involve the  public to advocate social change. The change in mainstream opinion creates changed social, political and economic conditions and makes powerful demands on the powerholders and mainstream institutions to change their policies. Simultaneously, some of the general public are inspired to to join movement organisations and activities. The process keeps growing, ultimately bringing about more changes in conditions and policies, and eventually causing paradigm shifts. 
Participatory Democracy 
The greatest struggle today is between authoritarian centralism and participatory democracy. It is going on at all levels of life, in all countries, at home and in the work place and in unions, in relationships, and especially in political, economic and social spheres of societies. Critical problems and values cannot be effectively addressed unless the general public becomes actively involved in the change process. 
The lack of democratic social governance is a chief source of the problems that social movements want to change. Authoritarian, centralist systems exemplify the dictum that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Western democracies promote the interests of privileged elites at the expense of society as a whole and the least-privileged in particular. Excessive military budgets, the promotion of nuclear weapons and energy, the promotion of freeways rather than public transport and the support of corrupt third world dictatorships are some examples. 
Society pays for these inequities through: environmental destruction, poverty, alienation, drugs, crime, decaying inner cities and rural communities, reduced social programs, military intervention and foreign and domestic debt. 
Political power, however, ultimately rests with the general population. Powerholders can only rule as long as they have the consent of the people. The general population supports powerholders and institutions so long as they are perceived to be upholding the public trust and carrying out basic morals, values and interests of the whole society (which is why all governments, spend much money and effort in justifying the legitimacy of their power and policies in terms of widely accepted values). The power of the people when public trust breaks down is exemplified by the recent nonviolent revolutions in eastern Europe. 
Participatory democracy  is a key prerequisite for establishing a more humane world. We need an empowered and population that participates in the political process to demand democracy, justice, equality, human welfare, peace and environmental protection. Hence, the basic theme of MAP is people power, a theme that is being sounded around the world. 
Three Organising Principles for Involving the Public as the Primary Change Agent 
 1. The chief target constituency is the general population, not the powerholders; 
 2. Be consciously grounded in society's central values and sensibilities; and 
 3. Guard against the alienating tendencies of some activists and groups to portray themselves as being against their society or on its fringes. 
Social Movements promote the value and practice of participatory democracy in many ways: 
 1. They raise the expectation that people can and should be involved in key decision-making 
 2. They create tens of thousands of on-going organisations at local, regional, national and international levels that educate and involve the public in creating changes 
 3. They create alternative institutions and new cultural norms that carry out the desired alternatives, not waiting for institutional decisions. 
 4. They force official powerholders to respond to people's demands. 
A New Model for Participatory Democracy 
By stimulating widespread participation, the movement can help transform the political process. In addition to fomenting a mass movement to overwhelm national power-holders and institutions, the diverse public involvement can: 
* Insure that the widest spectrum of alternative solutions will be formulated 
* Allow a new synthesis to combine alternatives into a general win-win solution which meets everybody's needs. 
* Allow local adoption of specific appropriate-scale solutions which meet the special needs of sub-segments of society. 
In this way, the model of competing special interest groups may be replaced by a new model of respectful cooperation. We can come to trust the potential of the human mind and heart to create excellent solutions, once freed from the limits of me-first, win-lose competition. 
The Eight Stages of Success 
This model describes eight stages that successful movements progress through over many years. At each stage, it gives the role of the movement, the powerholders and the general public, and the movement's goals, programs and pitfalls. The eight stages are grouped into five broad phases of Hidden Problem, Ripening Conditions, Take-off, Waging the Movement and Success.  
Note: a full description of this model is found in "The Eight Stages of Successful Social Movements" -- a companion publication to "The Practical Strategist", the work from which this summary was made. 
The Eight Stage Model is depicted in the diagram on the previous page. Three key aspects of social movements that are often confusing for activists are described below in terms of this model: 
 1. Making the Transition from Stage Four to Stage Six 
Many activists find it difficult to make the transition from the "Take-off" to the "Majority Public Opinion" Stage. The Take-off Stage is focussed on protest, with lots of excitement and media coverage, and may activists believe success is just around the corner. This stage lasts one or two years, and achieving long-term goals is a long way off. When movements move to "Majority Public Opinion", many activists mistakenly think they have failed: the movement has not achieved its long-term goals despite winning majority public opinion; the powerholders seem intransigent; and the movement appears to have died because the low-key grass-roots organising of stage six starkly contrasts with the flamboyant direct action excitement of the Take-off. They g
et stuck in Stage Five: "Perception of Failure". They are unable to make the leap from the role of Rebel of Take-off to the Social Change Agent of Stage Six (see WRR29 for an account of the Four Roles of Activism). 
 2. Stage Six: Majority Public Opinion 
Many of today's movements are in Stage Six, a long complex and often misunderstood stage. It requires mature activists who can participate effectively over the long haul -- sometimes decades. It requires long-term, often low-key work of educating and gaining the trust and involvement of mainstream citizens and organisations. A long-term perspective is required if activists are to maintain morale and vitality. 
This stage requires a variety of organisations and activists with a wide range of roles, strategies, tactics and programs (lobbying politicians, nonviolent action, developing alternatives, research and analysis of issues, public education, bridge building with the "opposition", services for victims, legal challenges etc). Activists need to be allies to each other. 
 3. Recognising and Waging Stage Seven: Winning 
Stage Seven often takes a number of years. It is usually another time of doubt and despair (eg., the last years of the anti-Vietman War movement). The public opposes current policies and wants widely accepted alternatives to be adopted. Many people are promoting and adopting solutions, and although central powerholders do not change their policies, it has become far more costly for them to refuse to change.  
Activists fail to recognise Stage Seven because: 
* the goal is not finally won until the end of the stage 
* activists want to guard against let-down because success appeared imminent many times before 
* activists fear that if they claim success is near, many participants will drop out too soon  
* many of the old problems and policies continue 
* powerholders and media deny movement successes 
*powerholders make a virtue of necessity by claiming the success as their own 
*powerholders  hide their defeat from the public by continuing their old policies while covertly laying plans to announce new policies and prepare the public to accept them. Activists fail to see the tell-tale signs of this "end-game" process. 
Example: In the last years of the Vietnam war, the US stepped up its bombing of Vietnam and claimed to be willing to continue the war indefinitely, but was simultaneously carrying out a surreptitious policy of ending it. Since then, the public, government and activists have declared that the anti-war movement was extremely effective -- but at the time, they felt the opposite. 
How to recognise Stage Seven success: A movement is probably in Stage Seven if, after waging Stage Six for many years, it has accomplished many of the goals of that stage; eg. it has won over a large majority of hard public opinion from current powerholder policies. By then, the public debate has switched to choosing alternatives. 
Sub-Goals and Sub-Movements 
Social movements have the potential to win over and involve the majority of ordinary citizens, because they are grounded in widely-held values (eg. democracy, justice, ecological sustainability). These fundamental values, however, are too abstract to mobilise people. Movements must be based on specific situations that clearly demonstrate how real people are being unjustly affected.  
The long-range goals of social movements, therefore, need to be divided into many sub-goals that can be clearly understood and addressed by the general public as specific violations of widely-held values. Social movements, therefore, are made up of many sub-movements, each seeking a specific medium-range goal.  
Example: The   1960's civil rights movement had a series of sub-movements seeking integration of buses and public accommodation, voting rights, and then equal job and housing opportunities. Each of these had many specific campaigns that showed real people being unjustly affected. 
Consequently, each sub-movement has to be conducted according to the requirements of its own MAP stage. Movement activists and groups consequently need to operate at many different MAP stages at the same time. The movement as a whole is in a specific MAP stage, requiring a stage-specific basis for the overall strategies, tactics, short-term goals, programs, expectations and evaluations. 
There are usually not many sub-movements until the overall movement achieves Take-off, at which time sub-movements begin to proliferate. As many of the sub-movements progress to Stage Seven (Success), the movement as a whole often progresses through Stage Six and into the end-game process. Public opinion and involvement supporting the movement's position now comes from an even larger majority. This process builds the cultural, social and political climate to the point where it becomes more costly for powerholders to continue their policies than to change them. When the whole movement achieves a major long-term goal, such as ending the Vietnam War, many of their sub-goals are automatically won, making it unnecessary for all of the sub-movements t
o go through all the MAP stages independently. 
There are many confusing caveats to movement success:  
 1. The endgame process and ultimate success are often not in the form the movement expects  
 2. Rarely is a problem totally solved, and the movement must continue to pursue many sub-issues eg., more still has to be done decades after the  1960's civil rights successes. 
Strategic Interaction: Movementvs Powerholders 
The process of movement success involves an interaction of strategies and counter strategies between the movement and the powerholders. The movement wins over an increasing percentage of public opinion, the powerholders are forced to react by adopting new policies and justifications. The movement then counters by creating public opposition to the new strategies. The process is one in which the powerholders and the movement are constantly reacting to each other in their attempts to win public support. 
Ten Indicators of Success 
The success process is difficultfor many activists to recognise because the problem and policies continue long after the movement takes off. Movements that have achieved the following ten successes are in a mature Stage Six (Majority Stage). They are in the process of winning a variety of sub-goals as  well as some major long-term goals 
 1. The issue is kept on social and political agendas. This needs to happen for a long period and some political scientists claim this takes the movement  75% of the way toward success. With the issue in the spotlight, time is on the side of the movement. Powerholders, on the other hand, will try to keep the issue out of the spotlight. Powerholders are most effective when they operate out of the public arena (nuclear weapons before  1980) or in quick short term situations (the invasion of Panama). 
 2. Movement wins majority public opinion on basic problem. Opinion polls show a majority opposes the current conditions and the policies of the powerholders on the basic problem, but not on the alternative. People might oppose a US invasion of Nicaragua but support aid to the contra "freedom fighters". 
 3. The powerholders change their strategy. They adopt new strategies as old ones become discredited, while maintaining their purposes and goals. eg., the US switched to low-intensity warfare using the Contras because the public opposed a US invasion of Nicaragua. 
 4. The movement counters each new powerholder strategy. The movement must build a majority public opinion in opposition to each powerholder strategy. This process continues over many years. At any given time, the powerholders have a number of different strategies and programs that are all opposed by the movement. ie, the movement has sub-movements focussing on each of the powerholders' strategies. 
 5. Many of the powerholders' strategies are more difficult for them to achieve, thereby weakening them in the long run.  Powerholders are forced to adopt higher-risk stop-gap strategies that weaken their position and are more difficult to achieve in the long run. This is because most new powerholder strategies and policies are more obvious violations of the values and sensibilities of the public. 
 6. Expand the issues and goals. Movements start with a specific problem that people see as particularly offensive and begin acting against it. As activists get involved with this problem, they learn of many others, some even bigger and more devastating than the first. eg., the movement to stop the US invasion of Nicaragua rapidly expanded to oppose all forms of US intervention in Central America. For many activists, issue expansion is discouraging, but such expansion is normal and the movement is progressing satisfactorily. 
 7. Win "hard" public opinion against public policies. From years of education and debate, and of experiencing new powerholder bogus strategies and public relations gimmicks, both activists and the public develop a stronger, more informed opposition to powerholder policies. This is distinct from supporting the alternatives put forward by the movement. 
 8. Promote Solutions. In the Take-off Stage, movements need to protest against existing policies and conditions and to create public debate. Until then, there is no motivation to discuss alternatives . By the end of Take-off, when a majority of people begin to question current policies, the movement needs to promote, and have the public begin to try alternative solutions. Debate now focusses on alternatives to existing policies. 
An advantage of not achieving goals right at the start of a new movement is that it gives activists and society time to think through the issue and generate appropriate alternatives. 
To regain public support, powerholders create demons: They emphasise the dangers of the alternatives ("evil empire", "blackouts"). They also promote bogus solutions (minor reforms, unfair alternatives), or promote bogus long-term processes that appear to be seeking effective alternatives. eg., the Geneva peace talks were used for decades to make it appear the US was attempting to negotuate peace in Vietnam. 
 9. Win Majority of Public Opinion on the Alternatives: After the public is won over on the problem, it must then be won over on the solution. For instance, the public can go from opposing nuclear weapons in general to opposing all specific weapons systems. The movement must help allay the public fear of the alternatives by adopting a new paradigm, a new way of being.  
 10. The Powerholders are now often forced to oppose solutions they had originally "officially" favoured and which the movement and the public now support. By MAP's  Stage Seven, the powerholders are put in the increasingly difficult position of having to oppose what the public recognises as reasonable solutions to the problem. (eg.the US government continues to advocate "modernising" US nuclear weapons in Europe while the European public and most European governments oppose the deployment of such weapons. 
Paradigm Shift 
Movements need to promote a change in society's worldview. 
Social Movements need to promote social change, not just minor reforms, by advocating a paradigm shift -- a change in society's worldview. A paradigm is the larger context of the problem, the way we view the world. It is the frame that defines the problem, sets limits on our view of the problem's causes and solutions, and sets the terms of the debate. 
A movement with a faulty worldview will promote faulty alternatives, resulting in a faulty end result, even if it achieves its goals. Paradigms are so pervasive that they are usually invisible, accepted without conscious thought, because they are unconscioulsy presumed to be the way life is. 
At the start of a new movement, the existing paradigm. It provides a general context and framework that justifies existing conditions and policies. It limits the way the problem is understood as well as confining the possible alternatives to a narrow range of minor reforms that perpetuate the status quo. 
To promote change, movements need to ( 1) identify this paradigm, ( 2) show how the problem arises because of it, ( 3) identify an alternative paradigm that fits widely-held societal values and within which the problem can be solved and then ( 4) promote alternatives and solutions defined within the new paradigm. 
Movements must advocate "social change reforms" (which are consistent with a new paradigm eg, eliminating nuclear weapons) rather than "reformist reforms" (which remain within the old paradigm, eg. nuclear arms control).  
A mistake made by some activists is to advocate "revolutionary" idealistic alternatives ("end capitalism", "end oppression") without having any practical means of achieving them. Such an approach and  the angry, negative attitude which often goes with it, scares ordinary citizens into supporting the powerholders, thereby marginalising the movement. 
Example: In the  1970's the women's movement identified patriarchy as the unsatisfactory current paradigm and advocated solutions within a new feminist paradigm. The resulting widely-held values of equality and a more humane way of relating have affected virtually all aspects of life.  
Winning the Public in Three Ways 
Succesful Social Movements win the public majority in: 
 1) awareness of the problem 
 2) opposition to present conditions and policies 
 3) support for alternatives. 
These victories occur in successive waves: awareness leads to opposition, which leads to support for appropriate alternatives:  
 1) All three (awareness, opposition and support for alternatives) begin at  10- 20% levels of public opinion, increasing slowly until a "trigger event" focusses public attention. Suddenly, in Movement Take-off, public awareness rises rapidly.  
 2) Over several years, public opposition to the status quo rises, but it is "soft", vulnerable to powerholder counter strategies. Through the years of Stage Six, "hard" public opinion slowly grows against official policies. Many activists become disillusioned, not realising the movement needs to win the public to the alternatives before it can achieve its goal. 
 3) The Movement progresses to Stage Seven, in which the public  focus is on what alternatives should be adopted. The movement concentrates on winning majority support for alternatives and creating the political power to force their adoption. The movement must have been involved in building the public's dissatisfaction with the status quo while lowering its fear of appropriate alternatives. eg, the opposition to nuclear weapons must become greater than the fear of the evil empire. 
Many activists lose heart at this time because they don't recognise this process as success. Success rarely arrives in the way it has been imagined. Awareness of the need to win the public in these ways helps activists recognise their progress, avoid unneccessary despair, and develop stage-appropriate strategies. It also highlights how crucial it is that the general citizenry be the movement's primary target constituency.  
Great News: World Paper Consumption Continues to Rise 
According to the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation), world paper consumption until  2010 will continue to increase at an average rate of  3. 1% per annum. The Swedish Pulp and Paper Organisation described the estimate as "optimistic" because the figure was higher than a previous FAO estimate of  2. 7% . 
In developing countries, the FAO expects the growth rate to be no less than  5. 8% annually until  2010. At present, only a fifth of the world's paper is consumed in developing countries. In many European countries, per capita consumption of paper is over  200 kg per annum, compared with a figure of  3 kg in India and  17 kg in China. Bo Wergens, who is Chairman of  both the Swedish Pulp and Paper Association and the FAO Advisory Committee on Pulp and Paper, claimed that in developing countries, "vast amounts of food are ruined because of poor transport and defective packaging". The FAO advisory committee contains  20 industry representatives and no environmentalists. 
"If anybody is to succeed in steering developments in the right direction" said Mr. Wergens, "it is organisations like the UN and the FAO" . he did not mention that he FAO, in its plans for world agriculture beyond the year  2000 recommends the "conversion" of large areas of tropical forest into agricultural land. 
Source: Press Briefings from the Swedish Pulp and Paper Association, Nov.  23  1994. Printed on one-sided, non-recycled  paper.  
US: FBI Bomb Drills Preceded Bari Blast 
The FBI blew up cars during bomb training exercises held on Louisianna Corp. timberlands less than a  month before an unsolved  1990 car bombing in Oakland maimed Earth First! organiser Judi Bari, acccording to internal FBI documents. 
FBI representatives declined to comment on why its San Francisco office felt bomb training was necessary on the eve of a planned series of anti-logging protests that became known as "Redwood Summer". Louisianna-Pacific (L-P) logging operatoins were a primary target of protesters.  
The documents were turned over to attorneys for Bari and Cherney as part of pre-trial legal proceedings for a pending false arrest lawsuit against the FBI by Bari and fellow activist Daryl Cherney. The FBI and other law-enforcement agencies have provided more than  3, 500 pages of internal papers. 
One of the chief FBI instructors at the L-P site was Frank Doyle, a  20-year veteran of the agency's International/Domestic Terrorism, Squad. A student at the site was Oakland police Sgt. Myron Hanson, a homicide investigator. Both Doyle and Hanson were among the first law enforcement officers to show up at the Bari car bombing scene in Oakland four weeks later. 
Based on Doyle's on-scene assessments, Hanson and other police investigators accused Bari and Cherney, who was in the passenger seat, of being responsible for their own bombing. Alameda County prosecutors later declined to press charges, citing lack of evidence.  
FBI agent Doyle could not be contacted for comment. 
During a pre-trial deposition in the false-arrest suit, Hanson said that during teh training exercise on L-P timberlands, FBI personnel detonated bombs inside cars. Asked if the explosive devices were placved inside the passenger compartments, Hanson replied " I believe a couple were, yes."  
Source: The Press Democrat, Santa Rosa, Oct  1,  1994.  

BRAZIL: Military Invasion of Indian Lands 
On the  7 th of January  1995, the military of the state of Roraima, Brazil, invaded the Indigenous Area Raposa Serra do Sol assaulting the Indians, burning their houses, and destroying their property with the sole objective of having the Cotingo Hydroelectric Dam project continued (see story in "Brazil" section of this magazine). The Minister of Justice has not taken any action to solve the conflict or to protect the rights of the Macuxi population.Moreover, he has voiced  no objections to the military actions of January  7 th.   
A hearing was held on January  23 to demand that the Minister take action to resolve the conflicts involving the lands of the Krikati, in the State of Maranhao, and of the Macuxi, from the state of Roraima. Only after great pressure by the indigenous community and affiliated organizations did the Minister agree to this hearing.  Even though no solutions were formulated, the Indians demonstrated to Minister Nelson Jobim and to his administration that it will not be easy to continue construction of the dam in the face of continuing opposition from the indigenous community and its organizations.  
What You Can Do 
The CPI-Pro-Indian Commission and CIMI-Missionary Council ask for your support.  Please write letters of concern to: Ministro Nelson Jobim Ministerio da Justica Esplanada dos Ministerios  70064- 900 Brasilia DF Brazil  or FAX ( 0055  61)  224- 2448 or  322- 6817         
Source: Indianist Missionary Council 

MEXICO:  Denounce Zedillo's Crackdown on Zapatistas 
  On February  9,  1995 the government of President Zedillo's declared war against the Zapatistas in the State of Chiapas (see "Mexico" section in this Magazine). The Mexican army reportedly surrounded the city of San Cristobal in Chiapas, and the hospital in the nearby city of Comitan has been flooded with casualities. The press is being excluded from the area. The people being attacked are the Myan Indians, and other poor farmers, who've been oppressed for the last  500 years. There have been international protests in front of Mexican Consulates and Embassies throughout the world at the request of the National Commission for Democracy in Mexico.  
What You Can Do  
* Organise or  participate in a protest at the nearest Mexican Embassy or Consulate.  
* Send messages to the Mexican government or your nearest Mexican Embassy or Consulate.  
Procuraduria General de la Republica (Attorney General) :                                                            Antonio Lozano Gracia  tel: ( 525)  626- 4476    fax: ( 525)  626- 4419  
Demand that the Mexican Government resist US pressure to eliminate the Zapatistas that it  negotiate peacefully with the Zapatistas and recognise the validity of  their demands. 

Indonesian Govt. Vetoes Fo E Environmental Mission to East Timor  
  John Hontelez, chairman of Friends of the Earth International addressed the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, today to protest against the repeated refusal of the Indonesian Government to admit an environmental mission to East Timor. Friends of the Earth International (Fo EI) is a worldwide federation of national environmental organisations in  51 countries, including Indonesia, and wanted to send such a mission in  1994.  
  The mission was to make an "international independent review of the state of the environment and the conditions for promoting sustainable development in the territory of East Timor". An important aim was also to establish and strengthen relationships between local NGOs and international NGOs, as well as facilitating the building of the institutional capacity of the local environmental movement.  
  The Indonesian Ministry of Foreign Affairs however, felt that the mission was not needed as "comprehensive academic research" on the state of the environment in East Timor had already been done.  
  Fo E International disagreed with that argument answering that its mission "is complementary especially because. . . we would like to focus on concrete opportunities for strengthening collaboration at the NGO level and also provide a basis for international co-operation aimed at a sustainable use of natural resources with the active involvement of local communities." Furthermore Fo E International felt it could not accept the refusal as it was "of the opinion that it is in line with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that East Timor can be visited freely by organisations like ours. . .A refusal from your side would throw a peculiar light on Indonesia's hospitality and would force the international movement of environmental NGOs to draw
conclusions about East Timor which are not based on an independent assessment of the issues but on hearsay and on a secretive and defensive attitude of the Indonesian authorities. We trust that it is not your intention to allow this to happen."  
However, the Indonesian authorities repeated their refusal on the  13 th of January  1995. Fo EI called upon the UN Commission for Human Rights to protest against the attitude of the Indonesian Government.  
What You Can Do  
Please contact your Ministry of Foreign Affairs as soon as possible and ask them to support Friends of the Earths' protest.  

PAPUA NEW GUINEA :  121, 000 Hectares in West Sepik Threatened  
  Large scale oil-palm development threatens  121, 000 hectares in the West Sepik Province of Papua New Guinea.  The lush, virgin lowland, coastal, forested landscape is to be cleared and then planted in an oil palm monoculture.   
  The Aitape, West Sepik agroforest project continues to move towards commencement. This is despite the significant opposition and numerous irregularities in the negotiation process. The Catholic Womens Association in Aitape report little landowner support or participation.   
  The PNG press has reported the anger of major landowning families in the area. The Times of PNG reports the emotional response one landowner, Theresa Morupe Haihui, as she sees her traditional land wrested from her control in the name of "development." She states she totally rejects the project, and as one of the only educated women from this very remote area she would attempt to take out a court injunction against Damansara Forests Products, a Malaysian logging company, to stop the project.   
What You Can Do 
  Please take the time to send out the sample letter attached; preferably with additional thoughts of your own .  
Sample letter:  
  The Honourable Bernard Narakobi  
  Minister for Agriculture, PO, Parliament House, Waigani, PNG 
Dear Honourable Narakobi,  
  I understand that your Ministry is negotiating with the Indonesian company DAMANSARA to sell them a major portion (around  100 km along the coast) of the forest between Suain and Aitape, West Sepik, for industrial logging and promised oil palm development. I ask you very urgently to stop this project immediately.   
  Indications are that the Agro-Forestry deal with DAMANSARA is just clearcutting the forest in disguise.  Many local people of this area as well as numerous PNG non-governmental organizations do not see this as true sustainable development; but rather as bad development, following the economic model of over-development which has caused suffering in so much of the rest of the world.   
Large scale, industrial logging is not development; and oil palms, if they ever should arrive, can not replace the rain forest. I would agree with a project that brings good development; necessarily small scale, community owned, and ecologically sustainable.   
  It is possible for village people to cut their own timber, utilizing wokabaut somils, for local consumption and export as "ecotimber".  There are a number of organizations within PNG setting up community-based, sustainable forestry operations.  I encourage you and your government to actively seek out Papua New Guineans working on "home-grown" development that more accurately reflects the Melanesian culture.  Please, cooperate with and support through your Ministry a reasonable development strategy that does not impoverish future generations for a brief boom period as primary resources are shipped elsewhere for processing.  
  Please say no to exploitative schemes; starting with DAMANSARA's moves to cut much of the West Sepik Province.   
  Instead, I respectfully request that you consider community-based, sustainable development.  Such a course has the potential to provide income for many generations to come.  This is preferable to the present resource liquidation currently occurring under the guise of development throughout PNG. Cordially,  
  Please, if possible, copies also to:  
- Honourable Sir Julius Chan, Office of the Prime Minister, PO Box  6055, Boroko, NCD  Papua New Guinea Fax:   675  27  6696  
- The Times of PNG Attn: The Editor, PO Box  1982, Boroko NCD, Papua New Guinea Fax:   675  25  4433/ 2579  
- The Post Courier Attn:  The Editor, PO Box  85, Port Moresby, NCD, Papua New Guinea Fax:   675  21  2721  
Source: Ecological Enterprises, January  20,  1995.  

VENEZUELA: Karina Indians Face Legal Dispossession 
  Karina Indians of Monagas State of Central Venezuela face the alienation of their lands for development on the  grounds that they are extinct as a people and their land titles -  which date back to the time of colonial rule -are therefore invalid. 
  Venezuelan NGOs are calling for international support to put pressure on the Chairman and members of the Supreme Court of Justice in Venezuela to rule in favour of the Karina.  
  The Karina point out that their land titles were accorded them in  1783 and were again registered in  1967 and recognised by the National Agrarian Institute and the Ministry of Justice. The regional authorities of the Maturin Municipal Council passed a Municipal Ordinance declaring the lands unoccupied in  1987 and are now seeking to reallocate some  10, 564 ha. of the Karina's land to third parties. The Karina have thus filed a case in the Supreme Court asking that the Municipal Ordinance be declared null and void.   
  The case, one of the first in Venezuela to deal with Indian land claims in the courts, is considered crucial by local NGOs. If the court finds against the Karina - declaring them extinct as a people - it will be a major setback to all of the country's  150, 000 Indians. As one local NGO points out: `The case is of a great importance since it deals not only with these people's land rights but also with the acceptance of the very existence of the country's indigenous peoples as integral parts of the nation.' 
What You Can Do 
  Fax letters along the following lines to the Chairman (c/o Fax: +  582  81  1654 ) and Members of the Supreme Court (Fax: +  582  483  9329) 
Suggested text: 
  Presidente de la Corte Suprema de Justicia Caracas Venezuela  
 Dear Mr Chairman, 
  We have been most alarmed to learn of the case of the Karina Indians of the community of Jesus, Jose y Maria de Aguasay of Estado Monagas whose land rights have been denied by the Municipal Council of Maturin on the grounds that they are extinct as a people.  
  We understand that the Karina have appealed to the Supreme Court to secure their legitimate rights to their ancestral lands, which were recognised over two centuries ago by the colonial authorities. 
  We are thus appealing to you to treat this case with the utmost care and to find in favour of the Karina Indians' whose rights are recognised in both Venezuelan and international law.  
  We would remind you that this year is the first in the United Nations' International Decade of the World's Indigenous Peoples and there is heightened international attention being paid to these peoples' fair treatment.  
  Yours sincerely . . . 
  For more information: WRM,  8 Chapel Row, Chadlington, OX7  3 NA, England Fax: + 44  1608  676  743 or contact UNUMA on Fax:+ 582  4839329 

AUSTRALIA: Anti-Green Violence in Daintree 
  Anti-green terrorists shot and killed a spectacled flying fox in Australia's Daintree Rainforest in December and hung the body on a fence with the sign: "Piggy bat today - Casa tomorrow." "Piggy" is Dr. Peter Pavlov, the local-government conservation officer. "Casa" is the cassowary, an elusive. endangered bird that grows up to six feet high. Its numbers have fallen dramatically since the European settlement of Australia. Pavlov's job includes monitoring cassowary habitat.  
  Unfortunately, the perpetrator is probably safe from prosecution.  Some authorities regard flying foxes as highly threatened, but they have no serious legal protection in Queensland and are regarded as vermin. This killing is a direct attempt to intimidate the protectors of this unique environment. 
  The Daintree area is the center of a major conflict pitting pro-environmental residents, local government, the National Parks and Wildlife Service, and the Wet Tropics Management Agency (a government body which controls the World Heritage Wet Tropics area) on the one hand against pro-development residents on the other. Issues of settlers' property rights, controls on domestic animals, vegetation-clearing, extension of the power grid to a  6, 600-acre subdivision, and the impact of the tourist trade are polarizing the community. They also directly threaten the biological integrity of the rainforest. The local council inadvertently precipitated the crisis by ordering a unique, wide-ranging botanical audit of the land north of the Daintree River.  
  The audit found some "highly restricted" endemic plants (whose world distribution can be restricted to areas as small as a football field) on much of the private property. Coupled with the Daintree Rescue Program--a community-sponsored, voluntary buy-back scheme for critical property, the audit triggered fear in the more conservative members of the community. Some landholders fell into a "clear it or lose it" mentality. They bulldozed recently-purchased lots which had  extremely high conservation significance in the most sensitive area of the Daintree. They harbored the misguided fear that the special plants would result in the government confiscating their land.  
  Local conservatives have carried out disinformation campaigns, exploiting strong anti-establishment feelings in the area. These campaigns have been inadvertently assisted by poor public relations by conservation officials. The National Parks Service is reluctant to provide adequate visitor access to the rainforest, so tour operators turn to private land--often using it without permission. This land contains virtually all the area's lowland rainforest.  
  A potent image uniting conservation-minded people within the region is the cassowary, symbol of the World Heritage Wet Tropics area. The threat to kill a "casa," then, is not only a blatant act of aggression, but a direct statement of opposition to local environmental initiatives.  
  Daintree, the "Heart of the Wet Tropics," is certainly not saved yet and still could be lost to poorly controlled and inappropriate development. At least one-third of the privately-owned rainforest land has already been cleared. Nonetheless, the local council majority is still against imposing legislation to protect the native vegetation of the area, favoring education instead. Education is necessary but is not enough to save  the Daintree. 
What You Can Do 
  Write to :  
R J Ives, Chief Executive Officer, Douglas Shire Council, PO Box  357, Mossman, Qld  4873, Australia  
 -- urging the Shire Council to enact laws preventing indiscriminate forest clearing on private property north of the Daintree River so that remaining areas of high conservation value can be saved.  Point out that Australia's growing tourist industry depends on keeping these areas intact. If you are not Australian, warn that you will boycott Australia as a tourist destination if action is not taken to protect the Daintree Rainforest. 
  Send copies to:  
John Faulkner, Minister for the Environment, Parliament House, Canberra, ACT  2601, Australia 
Source: Daintree Rainforest Task Force  

ECUADOR: Leaders condemn Texaco/Ecuador `settlement' 
  Leaders of indigenous and environmental groups in Ecuador are denouncing a proposed agreement between Texaco and the Ecuadorian government for the cleanup and restoration of oil production sites in the Amazon. What has been revealed of the agreement shortchanges the needs of rainforest dwellers--who were deliberately shut out of the negotiations.  
  "The settlement is inadequate and unfair," warns Shannon Wright, Rainforest Action Network's Amazon Campaign Coordinator. "If the plan is finalized, Texaco will get off easy with a partial cleanup. The people will suffer, the forest will suffer, and further efforts to promote corporate responsibility will suffer." 
  When Texaco shut down its Ecuador operations in  1992, the company made no effort to clean up  20 years of toxic waste or to restore the vast areas disrupted by its operations. Texaco's own statements now indicate that restoration of its former oil-production sites would be minimal. 
  The proposal would not reforest areas denuded as a result of roads built for oil production. Texaco's roads have allowed the deforestation of more than  2. 5 million acres of rainforest, as well as the encroachment of indigenous peoples' traditional territories by settlers, loggers, and cattle ranchers. 
  Texaco's operations are also responsible for spilling some16. 8 million gallons of crude oil in Ecuador's Amazon region. The company also intentionally dumped into the region's waterways  20 billion gallons of waste water containing hydrocarbons, toxic chemicals, and heavy metals. 
  People who rely on this water are suffering from skin, respiratory and stomach ailments. They also face increased risks of cancer and neurological and reproductive problems.  
  However, Texaco may sidestep paying for a comprehensive health program by "donating" some health facilities. That maneuver could give the company a tax write-off in the U.S. 
  Indigenous people, farmers, and environmentalists have been fighting for years to force Texaco to clean up its mess and restore the areas it polluted. They also want the company to provide health monitoring and treatment for oil-related ailments.  
  Leaders of umbrella indigenous organizations condemn the closed-door negotiations that led to the tentative settlement. Neither Texaco nor the Ecuadorian government consulted the indigenous people and mestizo farmers most hurt by Texaco's environmental irresponsibility.The groups demand meaningful participation in evaluating Texaco's impacts, negotiating a settlement, and monitoring the cleanup effort once it begins. 
  The organizations say a settlement between Texaco and the Ecuadorian government alone is not acceptable.The state-owned oil company CEPE (now Petroecuador) worked in consortium with Texaco as a co-polluter and may have to pick up a portion of any remediation bill. 
  The Ecuadorian government thus shares financial liability for the damage, so it has a vested interest to downplay the needs of its own people. In short, the government is acting as both defendant and judge, and President Sixto Duran Ballen may sign the agreement soon. 
What You Can Do 
  Please write or fax Texaco immediately, and send a copy of your letter to RAN. Sample letter: 
Alfred C. De Crane, Jr. CEO and Chairman of the Board Texaco, Inc.  2000 Westchester Ave,White Plains, NY  10650, USA. Fax: + 914- 253- 7753 
Dear Mr. De Crane: 
  I am concerned that Texaco and the Ecuadorian government excluded indigenous and farmer organizations from participating in the settlement to restore areas Texaco damaged during  20 years of operations. I respectfully urge you to make this process democratic, meeting the demands of those most affected by the environmental destruction. It is their health, way of life and future that are at stake. 
  I am requesting Texaco to restore the damaged areas with a full cleanup, planned with and approved by the affected communities and their representative organizations. Until this is done, I will not purchase any Texaco products and will encourage others to do the same. Sincerely,  
Source:From Action Alert # 102, November  1994. Rainforest Action Network  450 Sansome St., Suite  700 San Francisco, CA,  94111, U.S.A.  

CANADA: Haisla Nation leads Kitlope Victory 
"We have a solemn, sacred duty to keep faith with those who came before us, who guarded and protected this land for us: we must do no less for ourselves and for those who come after."  
--Haisla Nation, Kitlope Declaration,  1991 
  The Haisla Nation of British Columbia led indigenous peoples and environmentalists to a great victory in  1994. Their work saved most of the million-acre Greater Kitlope Ecosystem, the world's largest known, intact, coastal, temperate rainforest watershed. 
  The Haisla and Henaaksiala people have worked for years to ensure protection of the cultural and ecological integrity of the Kitlope. They achieved a critical first step when West Fraser Timber voluntarily relinquished logging rights to  800, 000 acres of the Kitlope without seeking compensation. 
  On August  16, the Haisla Nation and B.C. Premier Mike Harcourt announced permanent protection of the Kitlope Valley, three-fourths of the Greater Kitlope Ecosystem. 
  The Kitlope wilderness extends from estuarine marshes to lower, riparian, old-growth, spruce and cedar forests to alpine meadows. It provides habitats for all six species of Pacific salmon and populations of North America's largest vertebrates--black and grizzly bears, mountain goats, moose, and wolves. 
  The area is also the last part of traditional Haisla territory to remain intact and is a continuing source of cultural and spiritual inspiration for them. In this spectacular wilderness setting, children can see traces of old village sites, pictographs, and still-living cedar trees from which bark and planks were harvested. They can also visit the sites of legends--the ancient teachings that guided the way that people lived here. The Haisla Nation Rediscovery Society holds camps in the Kitlope to help children from Canada, the U.S., and other countries to gain self-esteem and cultural and cross-cultural awareness. 
  To protect the Kitlope, the Haisla worked with Ecotrust, a nonprofit organization dedicated to conservation-based development in North America's coastal rain forests. Together, they focused scientific attention on the Kitlope, developed a wilderness-planning framework, established the Nanakila Institute to foster protection and stewardship, and held public workshops. The Haisla also met repeatedly with the provincial government and West Fraser Timber. 
  Instead of creating a provincial park, the Haisla are taking an innovative approach. They are managing the Kitlope  jointly with the B.C. government. The Nanakila Institute is already developing programs of cientific research and nature- and culture-based tourism, and it will monitor the effects of these activities. 
-- Erin Kellogg, Ecotrust 
What You Can Do  
  Rainforest Action Network is asking you to take positive action this holiday season by thanking the Haisla for a job well done. Sample letter: 
Chief Councillor Rob Robinson Kitamaat Village Council Haisla P.O. Box  1101 Kitamaat Village, British Columbia V0 T  2 B0, CANADA  
Dear Chief Robinson: 
  I would like to express my appreciation for the leadership the Haisla Nation has taken in protecting part of the world's largest, coastal, temperate rainforest ecosystem. I am greatly inspired by the courage and resolve of the Haisla and Henaaksiala to protect the integrity of your traditional territory. You have set an example for the world and helped to sustain a vital part of the planet we all share. 
Source: Action Alert # 103, December  1994. Rainforest Action Network  450 Sansome St., Suite  700 San Francisco, CA,  94111, U.S.A.  

PHILIPPINES: Villagers Fight Mitsubishi 
  Residents of Masinloc on the Philippine island of Luzon are fighting a gigantic power plant that could force them off their land, cut thousands of century-old mango trees, pollute rivers, and endanger one of the Philippines' best-preserved coral reefs. PEAN, the Philippines Environmental Action Network, has issued an urgent appeal for support to stop construction of the  700-megawatt, coal-fired thermal plant. 
  Mitsubishi Corporation has won the bid to build the plant for $ 525 million, funded in part by the Asian Development Bank ($ 200 million) and the Export-Import Bank of Japan ($ 150 million). Neighborhood leaders have been fighting for four years to stop the project.  
Despite their protests, Philippine President Fidel Ramos broke ground for the plant in June. He told residents that blocking construction would deny the youth of Masinloc a brighter future, keeping them hostage to marginal farming and subsistence fishing. Activists fighting the plant claim that Mitsubishi  is not planning to install the desulfurization unit, an expensive but important pollution-reducing device. The opponents further claim that project director Napacor, the National Power Corporation, has failed to meet the conditions set forth in the original Environmental Compliance Certificate. The controversy has reached a critical stage because the funding banks have required  100% land acquisition as a condition of its loan.  
  As a result, Napacor filed an eminent-domain action against residents of the Masinloc village of Bani who refused to  sell their property to the company voluntarily. Napacor also began issuing "Notice to Take Possession" documents to residents in a bid to forcibly evict them. Napacor's threats have no apparent legal authority, but Catholic Bishop Deogracias. 
  Iniguez cited it as another instance of Napocor's "deceptive and bully tactics." A local court rejected a residents' petition to stop the project.  Lawyers working with PEAN are preparing another petition. Max de Mesa, Secretary General of PEAN, contacted Rainforest Action Network seeking support of efforts to halt this development by Mitsubishi Corporation. "We have raised valid issues that Napacor has failed to answer properly," he said. "Nothing less that a complete cancellation of the loans by the Export-Import Bank of Japan and Asian Development Bank is acceptable."  
What You Can Do  
  PEAN is calling upon groups internationally to write letters to the heads of these two banks expressing concern about this project. Local opposition has temporarily held up the loans, so now is a critical time to stop them. Please write now. You may use this sample letter. 
President Mitsuo Sato Asian Development Bank, Mandaluyong, Metro Manila Philippines 
President Kenji Tanaka Export-Import Bank of Japan  14 th Floor, Pacific Star Bldg. Sen. Gil Puyat Avenue,  cor. Makati Avenue Makati, Metro Manila Philippines 
Dear Mr. President:  
  I want to urge you to halt funding for the proposed Masinloc coal-fired thermal plant to be built by Mitsubishi Corporation. This development is opposed by local residents, religious leaders and environmental groups. The project will force local residents to leave their homes involuntarily. It will also result in the cutting of thousands of century-old mango  trees, pollute rivers, and endanger one of the Philippines' best preserved coral reefs. I also urge you not to fund any project for which Mitsubishi Corporation is the contractor. Hundreds of environmental and human-rights groups worldwide have joined a boycott of this corporation for its destructive logging and trading practices. Mitsubishi Corporation is involved in -- or purchases timber from -- several of the largest and most destructive operations in the world. It has been accused of numerous illegalities including transfer pricing, anti-trust, price fixing, fraud, and air and water pollution. Mitsubishi continues to reject proposals for an independent commission to investigate its practices. International development banks should never fund projects where there is local opposition, forced relocation, and the potential for substantial environmental damage.  
cc.: President Minoru Makihara, Mitsubishi International  520 Madison Avenue, New York, NY,  10022 
Source:Rainforest Action Network Dec.  1994 
The Woodchip Debate 
The current debate over the woodchipping of native forests for export has been one of the most controversial environmental issues in Australia in recent times. With over half of Australia's original forests cleared, and only a small proportion of old growth forests protected, the case to end woodchipping seems clear to environmentalists. Timber workers and their families, however, see the issue as one of environmentalists trying to take their jobs away.  
The real choice 
"The real choice is not jobs or the environment. It's both or neither" 
By Lisa Macdonald 
  The blockade of Parliament House in Canberra by  4000 timber workers has 
narrowed the terms of the export woodchipping licence debate to a question 
of ``jobs versus environment''. Yet all of the available information on 
employment in the timber industry indicates that posing the question this 
way is false. 
  The dispute is not about protecting timber workers' jobs. It is not even 
about whether Australia will continue to export woodchips. The big woodchip 
export companies try to pose the issues that way to hide the real issue: 
whether they will continue to receive hundreds of millions of dollars in 
government subsidies. 
  The timber companies are able to meet their demand for woodchips from 
plantation timber. They do not do so only because they are being subsidised 
to destroy irreplaceable old growth forests. 
  If the workers blockading Parliament House gain their demand that the  1995 
woodchip export licences granted by resources minister David Beddall last 
December be allowed to stand, they, along with our native forests, will be 
the real losers. The only winners will be the woodchip export corporations. 
  The Resource Assessment Commission (RAC) report of  1992 estimated that 
 40, 700 people (about  0. 5% of the Australian work force) are employed in 
forestry, contracting, log sawmilling, resawn timber, veneer and boards, 
woodchipping and pulp and paper production. This amounts to  3% of the total 
manufacturing work force. 
Chipping jobs 
  Employment in the industry has fallen by about  40% in the last  25 years. Yet 
in the same period the amount of timber extracted from forests rose by  40%. 
Capital-intensive woodchipping - the very sector that the Canberra blockade 
is campaigning to strengthen - is the major reason for this decline in jobs. 
  Australia's main forestry export is woodchips, which account for  74% of 
forest products export earnings ( 1988- 89). But while the woodchip export 
sector utilises about  45% of native forest timber, it employs less than  2% 
of the timber work force, about  800 jobs nationally. 
  Clear-felling for woodchipping is highly mechanised and therefore can 
extract and process vast amounts of wood with very few workers. As Justice 
Stewart said in his forest and timber inquiry draft report in  1991, 
``Australia is in the process of restructuring an industry from one that is 
labour intensive ... to one that is equipment intensive''. 
  The fact that woodchip-driven forest management is costing jobs is most 
clearly seen in Tasmania, which supplies  40% of Australia's total woodchips 
and where jobs in the industry decreased by  25% between  1971 and  1991 
alongside a simultaneous  260% increase in wood consumption by Tasmanian 
  The timber companies are destroying jobs for the same reason any company 
destroys them: it's profitable. According to Dr Robert Bain, executive 
director of the National Association of Forest Industries, ``Every timber 
company is doing very well at the present time, and the timber divisions are 
making major contributions to returns''. 
  Throughout  1994, pulp prices in the timber products market in the US and 
Australia jumped  80%. Fourth quarter reports now being lodged by North 
American timber products groups, usually closely mirrored by those in 
Australia, show almost all with improved earnings and many with record 
  A major contribution to the timber corporations' healthy profits is the 
enormous subsidies of the industry by government through the underpricing of 
native forests when logging royalties are set. 
  A number of organisations, including the National Plantations Advisory 
Council, Victoria's auditor general and the Industry Commission, have 
concluded that state governments have been selling timber from native 
forests for well below its true value. 
  A recent Victorian study concludes that the state government spends $ 91 
million annually to provide sawlogs to timber companies, but receives only 
$ 41 million in royalties. In other words, Victorians are paying the timber 
industry $ 50 million a year to cut down the forests. According to Dr Clive 
Hamilton, environmental economist and director of the newly established 
Australia Institute in Canberra, ``this figure turns out to be a very 
conservative estimate - the true figure is more like $ 300 million''. 
  According to a  1992 study by the Economic Planning and Advisory Council, 
Australian taxpayers have provided subsidies to the timber industry in the 
order of $ 5 billion in the last  70 years. The total subsidies provided by 
state forestry agencies are now in the order of $ 170 million per year. As 
Hamilton points out, ``These subsidies pumped into the industry by 
governments mean jobs are not created in other parts of the economy''. 
  These large subsidies also create a serious price gap between native forest 
timber and plantation timber, which operates as a powerful disincentive for 
investment in native hardwood plantations. 
  For example, APPM in Tasmania is currently charged a royalty of just $ 2. 21 
per tonne on hardwood from crown land for its Burnie pulp mill. According to 
the Tasmanian Wilderness Society, hardwood from its own plantations costs 
the company up to $ 13 per tonne to harvest. Until the government subsidy 
stops, it will remain cheaper to exploit native forests than to develop 
hardwood plantations. 
  The first experimental plantings of native and exotic species were in the 
 1860 s. By the early  1990 s, pine was by far the most widely used species. In 
the early  1960 s, a plan to become self-sufficient in softwood by the year 
 2000 began. Several Softwood Forestry Agreement Acts were enacted throughout 
the next  20 years, with a general trend of diminishing federal support. 
Today there are almost  1 million hectares of exotic pine in Australia and 
only about  80, 000 hectares of native hardwood. 
  The lack of government support for the hardwood plantation industry, 
choosing instead to subsidise the native forest industry, is the reason that 
hardwood plantations are considered ``out of the race'' economically. The 
only states with any significant native hardwood plantations are NSW and 
Tasmania. It is not known how much timber these plantations contribute to 
the industry, because the NSW Forestry Commission stopped collecting 
separate statistics for publicly owned hardwood plantations some time ago. 
New Zealand, however, is now benefiting from a boom in hardwood exports from 
plantations established in the  1930 s. 
  It has been suggested (Angel in National Parks Journal, Vol.  27) that the 
existing amounts of pine provide the basics for self-sufficiency already, 
and that if they were properly utilised, they could take pressure off our 
native forests now. 
Protecting jobs 
  Much emphasis has been placed by industry advocates on the importance of 
native forest logging to regional employment, but direct industry employment 
is often in the order of only  30%. This means that  70% of the work force are 
employed in ancillary industries or other commercial fields. Most ``timber 
towns'' have plantations in the immediate vicinity. Timber from these could 
be substituted with minimum disruption. 
  A  1993 Wilderness Society study, ``Do Greens Cost Jobs?'', found that  98% of 
job losses in the industry during  1971- 1989 were due to increased 
mechanisation, competition from plantation timber and the industry running 
out of forest due to over-logging. Only  2% of job losses were caused by 
forests being reserved. 
  Further, the job losses in native forests have been more than compensated 
for by increasing employment in growing and processing plantation timber. In 
Victoria, processing mature plantations will have provided around  4000 new 
jobs by the mid- 1990 s (RAC Forest & Timber Inquiry,  1991), and in the key 
timber region of south-east NSW, there are as many jobs due to come on 
stream from plantation logging as would be lost if logging in native forests 
was stopped altogether. 
  "`The timber industry knows this'', Sid Walker from the Nature Conservation 
Council told Green Left Weekly. ``But they have made it clear that they 
don't want one or the other [access to native forests or plantations], they 
want both''. 
  If all logging in old growth forests were stopped immediately, an estimated  
 1000- 2000 jobs would be affected. As Hamilton notes,``We should not fall for 
the argument that the industry is a good efficient source of employment ... 
but as environmentalists we must also be concerned with social justice. 
That's why many environmentalists advocate the phasing out of logging rather 
than a sudden end. 
  "Unemployment is an ethical issue, just as saving the environment is. None 
of us have any desire to see working people deprived of their livelihood, 
and it is entirely reasonable to provide compensation and retraining 
packages for affected workers, just as the Commonwealth and Queensland 
governments did when they banned logging on Fraser Island.'' 
  A more immediate and comprehensive solution would be to stop the subsidies 
to the industry, requiring it to pay the true cost of roading, forest 
management and the real value of the timber it obtains from public lands. 
This, together with a ban on woodchipping of any environmentally valuable 
forest, would force the companies to move swiftly into their own 
plantations, many of which are coming on line for harvesting now. 
  This would save both timber workers' jobs and our old growth forests. It 
would save all of us the government subsidies now being given to timber 
corporations. The only losers would be those corporations, which would have 
to start getting along without handouts. 
  It is essential that the environment movement recognise that it will be 
possible to achieve the goal of an ecologically sustainable timber industry 
only with the support of the employees of the industry itself. This means 
campaigning to protect both the forests and timber workers' jobs and 
democratic rights. 
  It is equally essential that timber workers and their unions recognise that 
industry campaigns which focus on native forest woodchipping can only result 
in a downward spiral of job losses. It is the prospect of lost profits, not 
lost jobs, which is motivating the timber companies' funding of the blockade 
in Canberra. 
  By forming the front lines of the companies' pro-woodchipping campaign, 
timber workers are acting in their own worst interests. They are being led 
down that path by a union leadership not noted for militancy over the past 
decade, during which thousands of jobs were sacrificed to industry 
restructuring while company profits soared. 
  The battle to stop woodchipping in our old growth forests is as much a 
battle to save jobs as it is to save the environment. The real choice is not 
jobs or the environment. It's both or neither. 
  First posted on the Pegasus conference greenleft.news by 
Green Left Weekly. Correspondence and hard copy subsciption 
inquiries: greenleft@peg.apc.org 
Where Two Worlds Clash: The Zapatista Struggle in Chiapas 
  When the Zapatistas launched their armed struggle on January  1,  1994, it was reported worldwide, but in the mainstream media, little was said about what they were fighting for. This edited transcript of a speech by Cecilia Rodriguez explains their cause and its global implications. 
Keynote Address by Cecilia Rodriguez, US Coordinator, National Commission for Democracy Native Forest Network Conference; Nov.  1994, Missoula, USA                                                                        
  "I bring you greetings from the front; from the war zone where two worlds clash, once again much as they did  502 years ago. On one side are the "disposable" communities, those which the huge multinationals have crossed off as unnecessary because they do not consume, they do not produce, they do not fit into the scheme which they have destined for humanity.  I bring you greetings from the inditos (the little indians), from "those who were chosen by God to be poor" as the feudal landlords of Chiapas call them, from the "transgressors of the law, the criminals" as the Mexican Army calls them.  I bring you greetings from the Ejercito Zapatista de Liberacion Nacional (EZLN) an indigenous army based in the mountains of the Selva Lacandona of southeastern Chiapas which declared war on the Mexican government on January  1 of  1994. 
  I share the names of some of the original people of this continent with you so that the spirits of their dead, and the dying and those who have chosen to die in order to live with the Zapatista Ar my, echo between these walls and in your ears and in your hearts. I bring you greetings from the mazahuas, amuzgos, tlapanecos, nahuailacas, coras, huicholes, yaquis, mayos, tarahumaras, mixtecos, zapotecos, mayas in the states of Yucatan, Campeche and Quintana Roo, the chontales of Tabasco, seris, triquis, dumiai, cucapa, paipai, chochimi, kiliwa, tequistlatecos, pame, chic himecos, otomis, mazatecos, matlatzincos, ocuiltecos, popoloca, ixcatecos, chocho-popoloca, cuicatecos, chatinos, chinantecos, huaves, papagos, pimas, tepehuanos, guarijios, huastecos, chuj, jalaltecos, mixes, zoques, totonacos, kikapus, purepechas, o' odham, tzeltales, tzotziles, choles, tojolabales. 
  And I hope that you hear more than the sound of their names, I hope that you hear their voices because you must listen very carefully or you will not understand their message. 
  When I began to prepare this speech I did not know where to begin.  I could tell you that NAFTA put an end to Article  27 which put an end to land rights for peasants and indigenous communities. I could tell you that from  1981 to  1989,  2, 444, 700 cubic meters of precious woods, conifers, and tropical trees were taken from the state of Chiapas, and that in  1988, the exploitation of the forest produced almost $ 8 million in profit, six thousand percent more than in  1980. I am aware however, that this audience can more easily read these facts, and that rather than try to review numbers and geographies, statistics and histories, all of which I can provide to you in more efficient form, I should focus on the sate of emergency in Mexico, I should try to explain to you the global significance of the struggle of the Zapatistas. 
  The struggle of the Zapatistas is about a handful of Indians who have taken up arms in a remote area of Mexico. The powers-that-be want you to perceive the struggle of the Zapatistas as a marginal one, of little consequence for each of you.  This, I tell you now, is a lie. Mexico is at the brink of a civil war, a war which, in its local and national implications, has global ones as well. 
  The faceless ones, the ones with no names have had the audacity to say no to the ecological and human devastation promised by GATT and NAFTA, to the misery, oppression and despair brought upon the world by the policies of Neo-liberalism.  They have, as well, dedicated themselves for the past  10 months to building an alternative vision for Mexico, a national movement for democracy. 
  The Zapatistas want a very different future for Mexico.  They struggle for land, jobs, housing, health, education, food and nutrition, independence, democracy, liberty, justice, peace. They insist that the right of every human being to have these things is not a utopian dream but the essence of our humanity, that to accept less than this is to have lost ourselves.  In the face of profound cynicism, when the rhetoric of the left has lost its meaning, the Zapatistas are about to give their lives, so that all of us may know hope again, so that we may all understand that we cannot abandon hope because of human fallacies, that we must rise to the call of a struggle for human dignity, that we must struggle not just to survive, but to live. 
  The struggle of the Zapatistas runs clearly and directly against the policies of Neo-liberalism.  Neo-liberalism is a set of global economics re-hashed in the  70's by Milton Friedman and Friedrich Von Hayec. Neo-liberalism states that economic crises or problems are the fault of government intervention. Its fundamental principle is "economic liberty" the idea that an economy must be free of impediments in order to operate. It  views things like social programs and regulations as impediments (GATT calls them "barriers to the free flow of trade and capital") and so requires the elimination of social security programs, government housing programs, minimum wage laws, environmental protection laws, import taxes, price controls, subsidies. In essence, neo-liberalism guarantees free markets for the poor, government protection for the rich. 
  Government therefore has a role in aiding the rich and controlling the population through state repression; stronger anti-crime measures like more prisons, longer prison sentences, more police. Neo-liberalism, according to Friedrich Hayek, requires a new moral system, and I quote: 
"A free society requires certain morals which ultimately are reduced to the maintenance of life; not all life because it may be necessary to sacrifice individual lives in order to preserve major numbers of lives. Therefore the only moral rules can be those which provide for the `computation of lives' determined by private property and its contract." 
  And the evidence of the last quarter century speaks for itself; indigenous communities, industrial workers, and women for example are disposable lives, so the "structural adjustment" which has taken place has eliminated their livelihood, all for the "greater good" of course. Under such a set of morals, you can justify the dumping of nuclear waste on Indian reservations in the U.S. What do a few million lives mean when balanced with the importance of profits? You can also justify the elimination of millions of peasant and indigenous communities in Mexico, so that land which was once cultivated collectively can now pass to the hands of multi-nationals. 
  You recognize neo-liberalism now?  Remember the television ads of all the Republicans who won political seats on Tuesday; less government, tough on crime, eliminate welfare and put people back to work by reducing taxes for the rich? 
  These economic policies are in fact eliminating "individual entrepreneurs" from the marketplace and sustaining powerful multi-nationals who know no borders, who recognize no government, except their own corporate one. The democracies that the multi-nationals will nurture and support are "democracies of the free market"; futile exercises, because the real political power and decision-making occurs in board rooms, and is carried out by faceless technocrats who are accountable to and elected by no one. It is the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization who call the shots in the world today. 
  It is neo-liberalism which the Zapatistas are fighting against, in the midst of progressive forces which are unable to identify their enemy, and the failures of rigid Marxist dogma, and this is the global significance of their struggle, this therefore makes their front line your front line as well. 
"It is the World Bank, the IMF, and the World Trade Organization who call the shots in the world today" 
  Some have called the Zapatista project "crazy, desperate, impossible, suicidal, idealistic."  I want to mark for you now the history of the Zapatista struggle, to point out those things which make it very different from anything which has been seen before. 
 1.  The Zapatista Army emerged by adhering closely to the Mexican Constitution and the Geneva Accords which govern war and set itself on a trajectory to win political objectives much larger than its military capacity. On January  1,  1994, hundreds of Zapatista troops captured and held  the cities of San Cristobal de Las Casas, Las Margaritas, Ocosingo, Altamirano, Comitan, while the Mexican Army slept off its New Year hangover. The Zapatistas posted a declaration of war. They stated they were adhering to Article  32 of the Mexican Constitution which states that the Mexican people are the source of legitimacy for the government, and that they have the right to overthrow it if it is not representing their interests.  They demanded the right to be recognized as a "belligerent force" under the Geneva convention, and called upon the Mexican Army to respect the well-being of the civilian population. 
  They have never characterized themselves as an irregular guerilla force; but as an Army, one which trained in the Lacandon jungle for ten years, whose members undertook armed struggle after many years of peaceful but unsuccessful political activism. 
 2. The EZLN has made it a priority to maintain a public dialogue with the civilian population and the international community, challenging its concepts of democracy, citizen participation and social change. They have been visited within the conflict zone by hundreds of activists from around the world, and are interested in developing a global resistance movement to Neo-liberalism . 
 3. The EZLN has called for and nurtured the peaceful activism of the civilian population by consistently allowing it to take a leadership position, indeed to suggest that peaceful civil protest defeat the need for armed struggle. In January, it was the civilian population who called for a ceasefire by massive mobilizations all over the country. The EZLN accepted the cease-fire and has abided by it since January  12 th.  In March, the EZLN met with the PRI government in San Cristobal. It was civilians who formed an unarmed security belt in response to the EZLN's call, by standing arm to arm in shifts for the days in which the EZLN negotiated with the government. Lastly in August, the EZLN launched its massive project of organizing what is now called the National Democratic Convention (CND). It acknowledges that there are many forms of struggle and all are valid. In this spirit, the CND was convened in the Lacandon jungle by over  6, 000 delegates representing communities from every corner of Mexico. The CND is working on the following issues:  
 1. The Transition to Democracy as a response to the inviability of the State-Party system.  
 2. Peaceful methods of transition to democracy, the elections, civil resistance, and the defense of the popular will.  
 3. A National Project around the  11 points of struggle of the EZLN.  4. A plan for a Transitional Government.  5. A plan for a New Constitution and Constitutional Congress. 
 4.  As part of its demands the EZLN has asked for complete autonomy for the indigenous communities which constitute its base. It demands special provisions for indigenous peoples which will establish indigenous regions with their own governments, economies and justice systems. 
 5. The EZLN, in a determined effort to maintain the unity of democratizing forces in Mexico, has disassociated itself from the ultra-left, criticizing antiquated Marxist dogma and sectarian tactics which divide and fracture a national movement for democratic change. 
  I just returned from the second session of the CND with more than  2500 delegates. Contrary to what the mainstream press has said, the CND is not a gathering of "leftists". There are certainly delegates from left organizations, but more importantly there are hundreds of people from the grassroots; campesinos, students, indigenous leaders, workers, teachers, neighborhood activists, human rights activists, ecologists, women, gays and lesbians. In the hands of this grassroots activism, Mexico has moved into an era of social fervor; massive mobilizations which have had a severe impact on local economies, and which are largely ignored by the media. 
  Encircled by  55, 000 troops, the EZLN has nevertheless constructed a relationship with an organized national civil resistance committed to a democratic change for Mexico. In the period of  10 short months, a democratic movement in Mexico has taken steps never seen before. 
  What does the future hold?  As some of you know, the ruling party of the PRI won the election of August  21, with supposedly the cleanest elections in history. In its well-known habit of speaking out of two sides of its mouth, the PRI proclaims a commitment to a negotiated peace, while carrying out provocative military action. 
  Meanwhile, the leaders of the civil resistance movement begin to suffer  harassment and persecution from the armed forces. The PRD, which is the party of opposition has already had  280 of its militants killed since1988, the most recent in September and October  this year. Peaceful marches have been met with armed force, a march in September in Guerrerro had  300 of its participants injured by Mexican police. In addition, several indigenous and peasant leaders have been murdered. 
  Such is the strength of the peasant and indigenous movements of that state that experts have said the entire state of Chiapas must be militarized for the PRI to maintain control. 
  The prospect of a war in Mexico is the ultimate irony. The same corporate forces which implement neo-liberalism have now impoverished the world's peoples to the point of unleashing unprecedented waves of immigration, and the governments of developed countries scramble to close down their borders. 
  The war which the forces of neo-liberalism has unleashed on the world has gotten a response; one which it did not expect and intends to contain. This war has as its booty thousands of acres of land, miles of rainforest, tons of precious minerals, water, flora and fauna. It is a war for a new jugular vein for the vampire of capitalism; the new blood which will give life to its rotting carcass. A war to eliminate those peoples who stand in its way, who do not fit, who do not have a place in the scheme of things because of their cultural traditions, their commitment to the land, and their moral values. A war to define democracy on its own terms, to delude the peoples of the world into believing that it is they who choose the decis ion-makers, when in reality, the decision-makers are not even in the room. 
I do not believe the democratic movement in Mexico will remain localized, I believe the seeds have been planted for a national movement and that the people of Mexico have reached the limits of their patience. 
  And so I stand before you today, to ask you the most unbearable of questions: can we do anything against the power of the multi-nationals?  Is it possible that as a species we have given up the only quality which distinguished us, the ability to control the forces which we ourselves have created? 
Whether or not the Zapatistas and the Mexican democratic movement struggles and dies alone depends on our answer to this question.  The Zapatistas can mark the beginning of a new era of struggle, one which reaches across issues, across cultures, across methods of struggle and across borders; one which looks for completely new formulas and new methods for our proposed struggles, one which questions the meaning of democracy and seeks to reconstruct its basis, because only in that way can we respond to the power of multinationals. 
  And for us, for those of us who are the inhabitants of developed countries, there is a greater issue at stake. Subcomandante Marcos recently commented that Mexicans who immigrate to the United States should stop exporting their hopes, that they abandon their homeland in the hopes that a different social-political system can give them all they hope for. 
  In developed countries, we don't export hope, we are constantly shrinking it, squashing it, whittling it down to size. "Clinton is better than nothing" we say . . . In this way the  11 points of struggle of the Zapatistas become utopia, we cannot tolerate unleashing our imaginations to conceive of such a thing. The path to those  11 points is in fact quite simple, we must go there together. Our only strength is in our numbers, it is in our ability to understand and see our enemy clearly. We must throw our fates together, give up our illusions that our little organizations will, if they only work hard enough, be able to do it alone. We must learn to see beyond the immediate, learn to look towards one another, instead of towards some magic, easy solution which will present itself to us in the midst of one of our projects. We must leave our individualism behind and construct a different future with the wisdom of our experience and the passion of our commitment to a world which is balanced, just, and responsive to human needs. 
  Until the electorate is engaged in a political and social process, one which assumes responsibility for society and the well-being of the globe's resources, it will continue to seek the easy answers of ignorance, of hate, of xenophobia, or arrogance, of individualism, it is intended that way, it will preserve the rule of the corporations in that way.  
  That is why your work is important.  That is why you must redouble your efforts to reach out beyond your own constituencies.  To educate, to explain. To engage those who belong to the opposition is more important at this point in history than legislative advocacy, than demonstrations, and marches.  It is this difficult and painstaking educational process which we continue to sacrifice in the name of "impact" and "productivity" and so the results are that our movements do not have the mass base to support our demands.  We remain marginalized, weak and disorganized. 
  We fear a war in Mexico. A war conducted by military men trained in the US, by guns and bombs made and sold by the US, for reasons which benefit the needs of the multi-nationals. 
I hope my presence here tonight will provoke you, will move you, will make you refuse to have Zapatista blood on your hands.  
  I am making a call to action in hopes that each of you will be willing to do something for the Zapatistas, that each of you will reject the idea that the death of these communities is necessary to sustain the power of the multi-nationals. 
  There are some basic demands that we need you to fight for: 
 1. That the military blockade around Zapatista territory be eliminated and the federal troops w ithdrawn from Chiapas. 
 2. That all economic and military aid be suspended until a process for a transition to democracy is established. 
 3. That the EZLN be recognized as a legitimate political and military force as defined by the Geneva Accords. 
 4. That NAFTA be suspended until the impact on indigenous communities be addressed, the effect on immigration analyzed and an appropriate binational response is designed, and the impact on jobs and the environment is evaluated. 
 5. That the peace initiative signed by Bishop Samuel Ruiz be supported as well as the Bishop himself who has come under pressure by the PRI and the Vatican. 
 6. That this network participate in the peace camps being established by the CND in the conflict zone, that it bring its capacity for mobilization to bear on examining and denouncing the exploitation of natural resources in the region, and that it educates its membership about the reasons for the Zapatista struggle and the movement for democracy in Mexico.  
  It doesn't matter to me if this network only takes up one of these points, only that you do it well and you do it with all your hearts. 
  In conclusion, I want to read a section of a Zapatista communique.  It expresses well what needs to be done; 
  "Today,  502 years after that power invaded our lands, the powerful want to corner us in our Indian sorrow, despair, pain. They want to make us deaf to the laments of our brothers who are of a different color, language, and culture, and who walk the same sad journey we do under the domination of arrogance. We know that our oppression is not the fault of a skin color or the curse of a foreign language. 
  "There are those who have white skin and a dark sorrow. Our struggle walks with these skins. There are those who have dark skins and a white arrogance; against them is our fire. Our armed path of hope is not against the mixed-blood; it is against the race of money. It is not against a skin color but against the color of money.  It is not against a foreign language but against the language of money. . .today we say that that foreign vocation which sits, without reason or right, in the large chair of the government, must be expelled by the shame and the curse of all the good peoples of this land. 
  "We have heard the doublespeak of the powerful: where he says peace, he makes war. Where he says life, he gives death. Where he says respect, he decrees degradation. Where he says truth, only lies walk. 
  "Today our sorrow turns to seek a place in your hearts. Our thoughts ask little, only that you no longer hold back your desire to find that lost dignity.  We only ask that a small piece of your heart be Zapatista.  That it never sell out.  That it never surrender. That it resist. That you continue, in your places and with your means, to struggle forever so that dignity and not poverty be the harvest in all the corners of our nation." 
  Jan  18: U.S. President Bill Clinton Wednesday urged Congress to approve a  40-billion-dollar loan guarantee package to restore investor confidence in the Mexican economy,warning that a Mexican default could cost thousands of U.S. jobs. Clinton said Washington will insist on `'tough conditions'' in the package. Mexico "will have to demonstrate even greater discipline'' than in the recent past, he said.  
  Feb  1: The investigative biweekly Counterpunch published solid evidence from a January  13 memo issued by the Chase Bank Emerging Markets Group, which has billions invested in Mexico: "The [Mexican] government will need to eliminate the Zapatistas to demonstrate their effective control of the national territory and security policy'', the Chase memo advised. "[T]he monetary crisis limits the resources available to the government for social and economic reforms'', Chase noted, indicating that the government should suppress the opposition rather than attempt to buy it off. 
  Feb  22:  email message on the conference, carnet.mexnews: "We've just recevied an emergency call from friends in Mexico. They tell us that the Mexican army has surrounded the city of San Cristobal in Chiapas and that the hospital in the nearby city of Comitan is flooded with casualities. The press is being excluded from the area. The people being attacked are the Myan Indians, and other poor farmers, who've been denied land and food since the conquest. They've asked that we try to get word about this out via email. While we have no further information beyond this one call I ask you to pass this message on, or tell anyone you think relevant via any means so that this does not occur in silence. 
  Jan  18: U.S. President Bill Clinton Wednesday urged Congress to approve a  40-billion-dollar loan guarantee package to restore investor confidence in the Mexican economy,warning that a Mexican default could cost thousands of U.S. jobs. Clinton said Washington will insist on `'tough conditions'' in the package. Mexico "will have to demonstrate even greater discipline'' than in the recent past, he said. 
  Feb  1: The investigative biweekly Counterpunch published solid evidence from a January  13 memo issued by the Chase Bank Emerging Markets Group, which has billions invested in Mexico: "The [Mexican] government will need to eliminate the Zapatistas to demonstrate their effective control of the national territory and security policy'', the Chase memo advised. "[T]he monetary crisis limits the resources available to the government for social and economic reforms'', Chase noted, indicating that the government should suppress the opposition rather than attempt to buy it off. 
  Feb  22:  email message on the conference, carnet.mexnews: "We've just recevied an emergency call from friends in Mexico. They tell us that the Mexican army has surrounded the city of San Cristobal in Chiapas and that the hospital in the nearby city of Comitan is flooded with casualities. The press is being excluded from the area. The people being attacked are the Myan Indians, and other poor farmers, who've been denied land and food since the conquest. They've asked that we try to get word about this out via email. While we have no further information beyond this one call I ask you to pass this message on, or tell anyone you think relevant via any means so that this does not occur in silence. 
  The Selva Lacandona, one of Mexico's and North America's largest remaining tropical rainforests, is currently being enclosed by the Mexicanmilitary in their attempt to crush the indigenous uprising in thestate of Chiapas.  The Lacandon tropical rainforest is rich in biological diversity.  It is the home of many different species including jaguars, spider and howler monkeys, harpy eagles and neo-tropical migratory songbirds.  The Selva Lacandona is part of a larger rainforest ecosystem reaching through Guatemala to Belize in Central America.  This entire tropical rainforest ecosystem is second only in the Americas to the Amazon rainforest region. (See p. 24, this edition for an article on the Zapatista struggle). 
  Two weeks ago, the Mexican military followed the Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN) to the Selva Lacandona.  Fearing reprisals from the approaching military, an estimated  20, 000 of the indigenous population and peasants followed the EZLN into the forest.  International and domestic human rights groups have complained that Mexican government forces have engaged in extra-judicial killings, torture, illegal searches, and unconstitutional arrests as they carry out president Ernesto Zedillo's orders to suppress the rebellion. 
  The whole crisis is rooted in an ecologically disastrous development model that is expanding with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Two of the central questions brought up in this emergency are:  who controls the land and what do they use it for? 
  A monetary crisis swept through Mexico when the Mexican peso fell recently.  Clearly the US and Wall Street are worried about Mexico's financial stability.  As the Mexican situation worsened, Chase Bank,specifically its Emerging Markets Group, which has billions at risk in Mexico, called on the Mexican government to crush the Zapatista insurgency.  Chase's January  13, "Political Update on Mexico" states, "The government will have to eliminate the Zapatistas to demonstrate their effective control of the national territory and security policy."  US president Clinton recently approved a $ 20 billion aid packet to bail out the Mexican economy and big US investors.  This aid packet is guaranteed by Mexico with oil revenues.   
  PEMEX (Mexico's national oil company) has declared that the Selva Lacandona covers one of Mexico's richest oil fields. If the Mexican government continues its military operations and enclosure in the Lacandon, the indigenous people face potential  genocide, and rainforest, eventual ecocide.  This is an international outrage and  the parties sponsoring this assault on the indigenous people and the rainforest should be aware that the whole world is watching and voicing their opposition. 
What You Can Do 
  The Native Forest Network is urging people throughout the world tocontact President Zedillo of Mexico, President Clinton of the United States, and Chase Bank of New York to demand that the Mexican military pull out of the rainforest, immediately stop the war on the EZLN and respect the rights of indigenous people and legitimate democracy.  Please contact the United Nations to express your concerns and to demand that a UN delegation be sent to the area to investigate these environmental and human rights atrocities.  Alsoconsider participating in community mobilizations and educational activities that voice these concerns to the people and institutions responsible for this current crisis. 

Ernesto Zedillo 
Presidente de la Republica, Palacio Nacional,  06067 Mexico D.F., Mexico. FAX:  525- 271- 1764 
President Bill Clinton 
White House,  1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington DC   20500,  USA. Ph. ( 202) 456- 7639 Fax:  ( 202) 256- 4562 
Switchboard:  ( 202) 456- 1414 
Charles Ballard 
Chase Manhattan Bank,  1 Chase Plaza,  19 th floor NY, NY   1008, USA.  1- 800-AT-CHASE Fax: ( 716) 258- 6339 
Boutros Boutros-Ghali 
United Nations, New York, NY   10017,  USA. Ph: ( 212) 963- 1234 
Source: Written and Transferred  by: 
Native Forest Network, Eastern North American Resource Center 
PO Box  57, Burlington, VT  05402, USA. 
phone ( 802)  863- 0571, fax ( 802)  863- 2532  
Restoration of the Ormoc Watershed 
  In  1991 disastrous floods killed  8, 000 people in Ormoc City, northern Leyte. Observers blamed the severity of the floods on  the deforestation of the surrounding watershed. A radical plan of reforestation is being implemented to prevent a recurrence of the tragedy. 
by Edward Stanton 
Tragic Effects of Deforestation 
  In the mountains of northern Leyte in the Philippines, a well prepared scheme for reforestation and sustainable development is now underway. Undoubtedly, the project was stimulated by the disastrous flood of November  5 th  1991 in which  8, 000 of Ormoc City's inhabitants lost their lives. Environmentalists and probably most of the survivors living in the area believe that the disaster was mainly brought about by the widespread logging that has taken place in Leyte during the second half of the century. Many Ormocans are fearful that tragedy could strike again unless a major effort is made to restore and rehabilitate the affected vital areas. 
  Dr Paciencia Milan, an ecologist at Vi SCA University, West Leyte claims that approximately  80% of the slopes in the watershed area north east of Ormoc city have now been cleared and planted with sugar cane and other crops. This means that the ecosystems of the originally forested mountains have been seriously impaired by the loss of the rich variety of rainforest plants and trees. Dr Milan points to the loss of ground cover which  causes soil surfaces to heat up fast. This in turn upsets weather patterns and the rainfall is no longer evenly distributed. Thus, the interruption of the water cycle brought about by deforestation and monocropping can lead to drought and global warming. Other local experts fear that because of the widespread deforestation in the watershed area, it could only take a few hours of steady rain for there to be a further tragedy involving considerable loss of life and property.  
  The effect of the flash flood of  1991 has made a deep impression on the people of the region. Typhoon "Uring" brought with it torrential rain in which the Anilao River soon over flowed its banks causing what is probably the worst man-made disaster in Filipino history. Expert opinion suggests that if the downpour had occurred  30 years previously, the damage and loss of life would have been much less. During the  1970's and  80's, while President Marcos was in power, the rate of deforestation in north west Leyte was massive. With few trees left on the mountain slopes to check the fall of the rains, the streams and rivers quickly filled and overflowed. Ormoc, a large city and port where the Anilao River flows into the sea, is particularly vulnerable to flooding when heavy rains and high tides coincide. 
Radical Action Needed 
  Following the first anniversary of the Ormoc disaster, the effects of deforestation in Leyte and other parts of the Philippines were closely analysed. It was generally realised that some radical action was urgently needed to restore and rehabilitate the water shed area. So it was that the Tripartite Partnership for Upland Development (TRIPUD) was formed. The initiative was supported by government and non-government organisations, together with various individuals and public bodies. In order to share the best knowledge and experience available, TRIPUD arranged consultations with representatives and environmental experts from other parts of the Philippines. Members of the farm cooperatives in the Anilao watershed and NGO workers from Ormoc and Tacloban city also took part in these meetings. By the end of  1993, a strategy for action was beginning to emerge and it was agreed that concerted efforts should be made to transform the "alienable and disposable lands" (A&D Lands) back into a type of forest which could be sustainably managed. However, due consideration should be given to the terrestrial ecosystems, and as Dr Milan suggests, the closer a farming system is to a natural rainforest system in its physical structure, the more efficiently it can maintain its ecosystem functions. Ecologists at Vi SCA University have recommended that a large variety of different tree species should be planted in the A&D Lands in order to produce the effect of a closed canopy and provide a steady continuous water supply for the coastal area of north west Leyte.  
The Way Forward Through Natural Assisted Regeneration 
  The "Closed Canopy High Diversity Forest Farming System" will include the planting of some fruit trees, but there will also be some trees suitable for furniture making, building construction work and some for firewood. The system also allows for the planting of a variety of climbing crops such as sayote and rattan, a variety of shade-tolerant root crops and various other agricultural crops which would be compatible with the newly planted trees. In short, the ultimate goal is to establish a permanent vegetative cover while providing a source of stable income to the upland community. 
During the first year of Assisted Natural Regeneration (ANR) it is envisaged that a large number of sun-demanding species will be planted in order to provide shade for less hardy tree species in the second year. In the third year, slow-growing shade-loving trees may be planted. It is hoped that wherever feasible, small holdings of livestock, especially honey bees, can be integrated with the trees. Whatever types of trees and crops are grown, the aim should be to attain a closed canopy as soon as possible and once that is achieved, to maintain it by speedy replacement of any trees that have been removed where coppicing is not practicable. 
  For some years, plantable seedling trees have been in short supply in the region. It is therefore planned to have two community nurseries for raising young trees for the ANR programme at sites where there is a reliable water supply close to the reforestation area. The nurseries will be on land owned or tenanted by members of farm cooperatives which are associated with the TRIPUD programme and the selected sites will need to be at least  400 square metres for each nursery. Project Coordinator Ricardo Peteros has put forward a target figure of  100, 000 seedlings a year from each nursery and this should provide extra income for the local people. 
During the first few years the project will concentrate on rehabilitating  14 hectares in the barangays of Milagro and Danao in the upper area of the Anilao Watershed. It is hoped that the two original community nurseries and two agro-forestry farms will soon become models for the establishment of similar ANR farm communities in other parts of the Anilao watershed. 
Local Farmers to Receive Training 
  The management of the project is being undertaken by the two non-government organisations, Phil DHRRA and WELSDEC. Phil DHRRA already has considerable experience of reforestation and agrarian reform in other parts of the Philippines so it will assume the main overall responsibility for the project, including the monitoring and evaluation of progress. WELSDEC, the local co-proponent will assume the day-to-day management of the project and report to Phil DHRRA any problems that arise concerning the implementation of the scheme. At least  30 farmers will receive training in soil and water as well as ANR technology so that they may be able to pass on the benefit of their experience to other farmers in the locality. If all goes according to plan, most or all of the  4, 500 hectares of the Anilao watershed will eventually be restored and rehabilitated. 
Prospects for a Sustainable Future 
  Another feature of the ANR programme is the planting of hedgerows along the contours of the mountains where deforestation has taken place and where soil erosion is likely to occur. The hedgerows of bamboo and leucaena can be planted a approximately one metre intervals of vertical height along the contours, and nitrogenous enriching legumes will help to improve the fertility of the soil. It will also be necessary to construct small check dams for the conservation of water and canals to convey water to the important areas of agroforestry. Phil DHRRA recommends the practice of intercropping and the rotation of crops in order that the farms may become bio-intensive and less susceptible to pests. 
  To summarise: the Assisted Natural Regeneration Programme will provide excellent opportunities for Leytenos farmers to learn new techniques of producing healthy plantable trees and how to get the maximum productivity from forest land. The process of propagating, planting and establishing a great variety of young trees will be a vital part of restoring soil fertility and the ecosys tems of the Anilao Watershed. This should significantly lessen the danger of another disastrous flood in Ormoc City and the sur rounding area. The Project Organiser suggests that the new system will result in a better standard of living for the upland farm communities through the income derived from agro-forestry. There is also the hope that the model tree nurseries and forest farms will inspire other communities to engage in similar activities and reforestation will be regarded not as a futile undertaking but having the potential for a reliable source of food and in come. 
  Sources: Based on the author's first hand experience of the project during a visit to Leyte in  1994. Information was obtained from Paciencia Milan, Ricardo Peteros and members of WELSDEC at the TRIPUD Partnership Consultation held in Ormoc City, February  18 th  1994. 
Timber Labelling 
No Flies on Indonesia 
  An article in the Indonesian government magazine, News from Indonesia shows that the Indonesian Government intends having a major influence on any future ecolabelling schemes in the international timber trade. The axing of an Indonesian Government TV ad in Europe last year (see WRR  290 shows that opinions differ widely on what constitutes acceptable timber. 
  "In determining ecolabel criteria we must be assertive to assure countries in the North that the implementation of the ecolabeling is not merely for developing countries but also for rich nations.", the article said. 
  The magazine reported that "A heated debate at the House of Representatives recently brought a new perspective on ecolabeling among legislators, following a formal explanation by Emil Salim, now Chairman of Indonesia's Ecolabeling Agency". 
  Emil Salim, formerly Minister of Environment, warned that Indonesia could be shunned by the international community if it did not take account of future international ecolabeling policies. Members of the House Commission on Environment Affairs were said to have been uncertain about whether ecolabeling was merely a political ploy of  developed countries to pressure Indonesia . 
Emil Salim explained that ecolabeling was intended to enable consumers to  buy the best product just as they are free to pick the restaurant they patronise. Consumers have the right, he said,  to ask whether a product comes from a sustainably-managed forest, although he believed that some developed countries seem to be exerting their trade strategies on other countries under the pretext of environment preservation. 
  Salim drew the attention of House to the US-imposed a ban on tuna fish from Mexico. The US blamed the mass killing of dolphins on excessive tuna exploitation in Mexico. 
 Indonesia faces similar pressure from the international trade community on claims that the country has excessively exploited its forests. Indonesia consequently should implement ecolabeling before  2000. 
  Indonesia has to take account of the lesson of Mexico if it wants to be accepted by the international business community, said Salim. Environment Minister Sarwono Kusum-aatmadja said the Indonesia needed to "bear in mind the international consumers movement". 
  "The movement is, in fact, the force that actually pushes countries to take into account the close relation between environment and trade." he warned. 
  Countries with ecolabeling include those of the European Union (EU), the US, Canada, Germany, India, the Nordic countries, Singapore and South Korea. 
  The International Standardization Organisation (ISO) has set up a new special commission for environment, named TO  2000. International trade will be more closely related to environment due to the establishment of the commission, said a noted Indonesian environment expert, Otto Soemarwoto. "And as the TO  2000 is dominated by Northern countries, the relationship will be more colored by the North's perception." 
  Ecolabeling campaigns by the North will make the implementation of ecolabeling important for the South, in particular Indonesia, the article said. Early in  1994, Minister of Forestry Djamaloedin Soerjohadikoesoemo set up the Indonesian Ecolabel Agency (LEI) which managed ecolabeling procedures for the Forestry sector. It was followed by the establishment of a LEI working group consisting of several Non-Governmental Organizations in the forestry field. 
  The working group had held a series of meetings with forestry businessmen, scientists, academies and governmental institutions in order to formulate requirements for forestry management which is in accordance with the terms made by the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO) and the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). 
  The criteria for forestry management had been tried out in three forest concessions in Riau and East Kalimantan in July  1994. The results of the trial implementation were re-evaluated at an international meeting in Pacet, around  70 km East of Bandung, in September  1994. 
  Decisions reached at the Pacet Meeting will be implemented early  1995. "In determining ecolabel criteria we must be assertive to assure countries in the North that the implementation of the ecolabeling is not merely for developing countries but also for rich nations." 
Giant Logging Firms Poised to Attack Forests - Massive rip-off may trigger bloodbath 
  At least five logging companies are seeking timber leases which total over  25 percent of Suriname, in northeast South America. The inhabitants of the proposed concession areas have not been consulted. Sources in Suriname tell us that indigenous and traditional peoples may use violence to resist incursions onto their lands.  
  The chain saws are ready to rip. If approved, investments could begin as early as March, and concessions could be fully operational in a matter of months. The leases are in the untouched, pristine southern half of the country. Four-fifths of Suriname is primary tropical rainforest.  
  Deforestation until now has been very slow, only  0. 1%  per year. The forests are inhabited by a diverse  population including five Amerindian groups and five maroon tribes, descendants of escaped slaves who have been living in the forest for over  200 years practicing unique African cultures. Some groups are armed and prepared to defend their ancestral lands. The government signed a peace accord with these groups in  1992, following years of civil war. Article  10 of the accord calls for recognition and demarcation of lands, but the committee that was supposed to oversee the process has never met. Logging negotiations have been secret, with strong suspicions of corruption.  
  Some groups are armed and prepared to defend their ancestral lands. 
The marauding companies include Berjaya, from Malaysia, with a track record of bribery and  destruction. Two other large bids come from Indonesian firms. Two mainland Chinese companies are seeking smaller concessions. The three large proposed concessions cover  7. 5 million acres and entail more than $ 300 million of investment in roads, equipment, and processing mills. 
Suriname is in economic crisis, with  500 per cent inflation and no foreign-exchange reserves. The government is trying to stave off the day it must begin economic reform, but the concessions do not even make sense financially. Sources in Suriname say the government stands to lose tens of millions of dollars a year in potential revenue from the concessions, even with full contract compliance. That lost revenue is about the same size as the current budget deficit, which is what drives up inflation in the first place! 
What You Can Do 
  Suriname's National Assembly is set to consider the Berjaya contract during February. This action alert may reach you after the decision, but letters will still be worth sending. Send faxes to as many of the following as you can afford, as soon as you can.                                       
Mr. Ronald Venetiaan, President of Suriname:  011- 597- 475- 266  
Mr. Franco Demon, Suriname Ministry of Natural Resources:  011- 597- 472- 911  
Dutch Embassy in Washington, DC:  1- 202- 363- 1032 
Embassy of Suriname in Washington, DC:  1- 202- 244- 5878  
Also send copies to: Mr. Enrique Iglesias, President, Inter-American Development Bank:  1- 202- 623- 3614 e-mail: gladys@iadb.org; Mr. Lewis Preston, President, World Bank:  1- 202- 477- 6658 e-mail: pohara@worldbank.org; Mr. Michael Camdessus, President, International Monetary Fund: 1- 202- 623- 4661; U.S. Vice-President Al Gore:  1- 202- 456- 2461 e-mail: president@whitehouse.gov. 
Sample text: I urge you to reject the exploitative and economically foolish sacrifice of Suriname's forests to enrich timber tycoons. Suriname's government may be under extraordinary pressure, but giving up a quarter of the country for uncertain, short-term economic gain is no real solution. The U.S., the Netherlands, the IDB, IMF, and World Bank must apply their resources to provide Suriname with wiser options for the future of the nation and the planet.  
Source: Rainforest Action Network, Jan  27,  1995 Tel: ( 415)  398- 4404 Fax: ( 415)  398- 2732 
The New South Wales  
The Sustainable Use of  Timber  
Our Global Life Support Systems are in Danger. The culture and livelihood of Indigenous Peoples worldwide are being destroyed. Our own unique Australian Old Growth Forests are rapidly vanishing.  
THE GOOD WOOD GUIDE tells you which timbers to use, how to use them, where to get them, and when to use non-timber alternatives. 
The Guide is an essential reference for architects, designers, builders, craftspeople, policy makers and all timber users wanting to consider environmental and human rights issues when choosing timber and building materials. 
It outlines reasons for recommending the use of recycled timber and plantation pine as the current most easily available, and ethically acceptable option for timber users. All building applications are covered, as well as use and composition of preservative treatments. New developments here and overseas are reviewed. 
At the back is the Alternative Business Directory, which puts you in touch with the right people to supply you with ethically derived timber and non-timber products and services.  
The GOOD WOOD GUIDE  is a continually evolving publication --  feedback and information from all interested organisations or individuals is invited.  
The NSW Good Wood Guide  
Rainforest Information Centre 
PO Box  368, Lismore  2480, NSW.     
Phone:  066  218  505  Fax:  066  222  339 
Please send me ....

....copies of the New South Wales Good Wood Guide. 
I enclose a cheque for  $....

.... made out to the Rainforest Information Centre.
Price: $ 12. 50 (ie, $ 10. 00 plus $ 2. 50 postage [Aust.; overseas, add $ 5 postage] for each copy. 
NAME: ....




Well, we decided in order to raise some money 
for our little rainforest group thing  that we'd put on a 
cosmic vegan cafe fling and that this would be performed at   
the infamous Maleny Folk Fest.  So we set out about 
our labourious and tedious wholistic organic quest 
with the passion of mad hippies possessed. 
We booked the marquee, hired the plates, cancelled the    
marquee, made the cushions, booked the marquee 
arranged the food, cancelled the marquee,gathered the  
volunteers, booked the Marquee, scavenged the tables 
confirmed the Marquee. 
Did a shitload more, piled up the cars and trailers 
hit the road with vehicles firing on far too few cylinders, 
flat tyres abundant, engines exploding madly. 
Weary and prefestival beaten, we dump the car,  
actually the car dumps us and all our gear a k before 
 our destination.  We haul our over-committed bodies  
thru the pearly pre-dawn festival gates, rubbing sleepless     
eyes in the realization that we finally, finally got here. 
We then proceed to 
arrange rearrange arrange rearrange arrange 
our cafe. The Marquee is the wrong size! Can't believe it! 
Miraculously, like a divine act of the goddess 
a comfy, inviting space emerges.  Much to our amusement 
we have recreated our own lounge room!  It looks good. 
We pat ourselves on our communal collective back and     
toddle off to bed, searching thru the hazy darkness and  
constant throb of the Chai tent blues 
for that elusive sleep lost far back along the track. 
The first day is filled with horror and terror 
participants wounded over the anti-appreciation of  
onions in the salad and such like antics dread and  
despair is heavy in the air.  A circle is formed and anguishes 
come out fast and flowing with summations of doing it  
better the next day we toddle off to bed searching thru the  
 hazy darkness and constant throb of the Chai tent blues  
for that elusive sleep lost far back along the track 
This day runs a little smoother with us all checking each  
others emotional states, trying to keep one eye on the  
cohesive collective wholistic vegan hippie thing cafe fling 
Work like dogs, mad as hatters doing it all for the conviction  
of a lerv of the forest and all things furry and green 
confirmed dedicated souls we are, in our power, on a trip. 
The curry burns, the lettuce flys, cakes are created, the 
tofu fries, the dishwasher learns, ideas are mediated, the  
pot of chai dies, the burgers topple and fall, wheat meat  
is a hit, the volunteers have a ball,  
the whole thing a close knit eco-anarchistic fit. 
-- sophie d. 
Please add me to the list of subscribers to World Rainforest Report 
New Subscriber / Renewal 
Send this form to : WRR, Rainforest Information Centre, PO Box  368, Lismore, NSW  2480, Australia 
I enclose $ 15 (Aust. Subscriber) or $ 25 (Overseas Subscriber) Please use Australian currency only. Make cheques payable to the Rainforest Information Centre 
Please send my subscription to: 
Name: ....

Address: ....