Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

World Bank Pledges to Save Trees, Then Helps Cut Down Amazon

By Daniel Howden, The Independent UK. Posted January 17, 2008.


A month ago it vowed to fight deforestation. Now research reveals it funds the rainforest's biggest threat.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Daniel Howden

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

The World Bank has emerged as one of the key backers behind an explosion of cattle ranching in the Amazon, which new research has identified as the greatest threat to the survival of the rainforest.

Ranching has grown by half in the last three years, driven by new industrial slaughterhouses which are being constructed in the Amazon basin with the help of the World Bank. The revelation flies in the face of claims from the bank that it is funding efforts to halt deforestation and reduce the massive greenhouse gas emissions it causes.

Roberto Smeraldi, head of Friends of the Earth Brazil and lead author of the new report, obtained exclusively by The Independent on Sunday, said the bank's contradictory policy on forests was now clear: "On the one hand you try and save the forest, on the other you give incentives for its conversion."

There are now more than 74 million cattle reared in the Amazon basin, the world's most important eco-system, where they outnumber people by a ratio of more than three to one. Fuelled by massive illegal ranches, the South American giant has become the world's leading beef exporter, rearing more cattle than all 25 EU members put together. This industrial expansion comes despite international agreements to combat deforestation, and claims from the government of Brazil that it is succeeding in slowing the destruction of the world's largest standing forest.

"Land-use change in the Amazon is first and foremost a product of ranching. It is on the hooves of cattle, out on the forest fringe, where the repercussions are being felt," said Mr Smeraldi.

The new report, "The Cattle Realm", comes after a year in which deforestation was acknowledged as the second leading cause of carbon emissions worldwide and was included in the plan for a new global treaty to fight climate change. But the catastrophic destruction of the Amazon to make way for ranches is being funded by the same international institutions that have pledged to fight deforestation.

The World Bank, which unveiled a new programme to fund "avoided deforestation" at the UN climate summit in Bali last month, is at the same time pouring money into the expansion of slaughterhouses in the Amazon region. The new report estimates that the internationally funded expansion of Brazil's beef industry was responsible for up to 12 billion tons of CO2 emissions over the past decade - an amount comparable to two years of emissions from the US.

The World Bank, which British taxpayers help to fund, lent its backing to the inclusion of deforestation in the Bali "road map" signed by 180 countries last month. At the summit the bank unveiled its Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF), aimed at reducing deforestation by compensating developing countries for carbon dioxide reductions realised by maintaining their forests. The pilot programme has received more than $160m (£82m) in funding from donor governments.

The World Bank's president, Robert Zoellick, claimed that the project "signals that the world cares about the global value of forests and is ready to pay for it. There is now a value to conserving, not just harvesting the forest." But the institution, set up to provide loans to developing countries aimed at reducing poverty, has been accused of hypocrisy as it talks up relatively low levels of funding on "avoided deforestation" while spending millions more on the industries - such as cattle ranching and soya production - that are the acknowledged drivers of forest destruction.

In a single project last year, the IFC -- part of the World Bank group -- handed $9m to Brazil's leading beef processor to upgrade its slaughterhouse operations in the Amazon, despite an environmental study, carried out for the IFC, which showed that expansion of a single slaughterhouse in Maraba would lead to the loss of up to 300,000 hectares of forest to make way for more cattle.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: rainforest, amazon, world bank, cattle, ranching, greenhouse gas, global warming, climate change

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Well, DUH!!!!
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Jan 17, 2008 9:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No nation that has followed the IMF/WB recomendations to get out of debt has even come close to it...and their people suffer even more because of the strict economic policies recomended.

Of course they pledge to stop deforestation only to actually help it along.

These institutions are NOT around to help the poor, but to help the rich to the resources poor nations have. That should have been even more plainly obvious when Wolfowitz was put in charge.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Name Says It All
Posted by: Jeff Hoffman on Jan 17, 2008 12:27 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What could be more evil than the World Bank?

In the mid 1980s, I was heavily involved in an Earth First! campaign to stop tropical rain forest destruction. Our main targets at that time were American fast food burger joints, especially Burger King (because they imported beef from Central America that was grazed on land that used to be rain forest but was cut down to graze the cattle) and the World Bank, because it lends money for projects that entail rain forest destruction. Plus ca change, non?

People really need to stop eating beef. Not only is it unhealthy, but consuming it is one of the most environmentally destructive things people do. In addition to being responsible for destruction of tropical rain forests, the cattle industry has turned the entire western U.S. grasslands into deserts, and is the most environmentally destructive force in the west. If you eat beef, you share responsibility for all this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"The bank's stated aim of reducing greenhouse gas emissions." - with a straight face?
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jan 21, 2008 1:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anyone recall the World Bank's financing of the Chad-Cameroon oil pipeline, which is now being operated by ExxonMobil? At the time, the World Bank rolled out the full-court PR campaign, claiming that the project would bring untold benefits to Chad (which borders the Darfur region of Sudan).

The money from the project was not used to fight poverty in the region- Chad's dictator instead started buying arms.

Environmental groups had been against the project from the beginning - see The World Bank and Chad/Cameroon Oil and Pipeline Project -Corporate Welfare Disguised as Aid to the Poor? 1997

"International development assistance for two of the poorest countries in Africa could soon be used to support a project planned by big oil companies. An international consortium consisting of Exxon, Shell and ELF is planning a multibillion dollar oil exploitation project with serious environmental and social risks that many fear may create another Ogoniland, Nigeria's oil-producing region which has seen environmental devastation and brutal human rights violations.

The project consists of the development of the Doba oil-fields in southern Chad, a landlocked nation, and a 600 mile pipeline through Cameroon to transport the oil to an Atlantic port from where it is exported..."


The exact details are a bit complicated, but they do reveal why major oil companies and other resource extraction corporations like to get the World Bank involved in their projects:

"A brief project report by Exxon, the lead operator of the project, states that the World Bank and the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the World Bank's arm which directly supports the private sector, will represent the foundation of the project financing structure. The reasons for this prerequisite are that World Bank involvement provides political risk insurance and serves to attract funding from other sources, especially export-credit-agencies."

So, has the project brought peace and prosperity as promised? Hardly. Try the latest reports out of Chad: Chad rebels say destroyed army helicopter gunship, Reuters, 20 Jan 2008,

Not only that, Chad military and rebel forces have both been implicated in the violence in the Darfur region of Sudan, which (surprise!) also has significant oil reserves (which Exxon would just love to gain control of, and kick out the Chinese - not that the Chinese are "good guys", by any means). Really - see Chad declares right to pursue rebels in Sudan after bombings, AFP, Jan 8, 2008

So, that's the World Bank for you. They put $4 billion into the Chad-Cameroon oil pipeline for the benefit of Western oil interests, and sold it to the public as aid to the poor. Oversight was non-existent.

What Africa could use is solar power - they're perfectly situated for using sunlight for energy - but is the World Bank pouring billions into such a plan? To their credit, the World Bank has a "Lighting Africa" program to do just that - but its startup funding is a paltry $13 million for the entire continent - about 1/300th of the financing of the Exxon-Shell pipeline. That program will be good for World Bank PR purposes, but not much else.

The World Bank could be used to help poverty-striken countries - it could be providing microcredit, promoting renewable energy and fossil fuel-free agricultural practices - but it's not. Don't expect much to change as long as corrupt neoconservatives like Paul Wolfowitz keep getting appointed to leading positions at the bank.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The World Bank and its staff are corrupt and evil
Posted by: Bobsays on Jan 21, 2008 2:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have seen these guys up close and they are worse than any national western government. They are more arrogant, more corrupt, more venal, and deeped in the pig's trough than any national government worker.

Next time you are in a Starbucks and overhear some World Bank staff yacking about their great life, just imagine the Swiss bank accounts these dudes have. Think of the poor people they shaft.

People should cold shoulder these guys, not suck up to them like people do right now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is the World Bank
Posted by: Shey on Jan 21, 2008 4:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
.......so we're surprised they lied to us, because???
Also, one more reason to become a vegetarian.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Lumberjack is looking for work...
Posted by: MyLeftFoot on Jan 21, 2008 5:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
he goes for a job interview and is asked how qualified he is. I'm damn good he says, I logged the Sahara Forest. You mean the Sahara Desert the interviewer says. Oh, is that what they call it now? says the lumberjack.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

a poem from my German grandfather
Posted by: zooeyhall on Jan 21, 2008 7:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Woodman, spare that tree!
Touch not a single bough;
In youth it sheltered me,
And I'll protect it now;
'Twas my forefather's hand,
That placed it near his cot,
There, woodman, let it stand,
Thy axe shall harm it not!

That old familiar tree,
Its glory and renown
Are spread o'er land and sea,
And would'st thou hew it down?
Woodman, forbear thy stroke!
Cut not its earthbound ties;
Oh! spare that aged oak,
Now tow'ring to the skies.

When but an idle boy,
I sought its grateful shade;
In all their gushing joy,
Here, too, my sisters played;
My mother kissed me here;
My father pressed my hand,
Forgive this foolish tear,
But let that old oak stand!

My heart-strings round thee cling,
Close as thy bark, old friend!
Here shall the wildbird sing,
And still thy branches bend.
Old tree, the storm thou shalt brave,
And, woodman, leave this spot:
While I've a hand to save,
Thy axe shall harm it not!"

My Grandfather was a forester in Germany before he emigrated to Nebraska. This was found among his effects when he passed away, it was written in German on a parchment and framed. I have translated it from the German.

The Germans always seemed to be very concerned about the environment and especially forestry. When he came to Nebraska in the early 1900's and started farming, he was dismayed by how treeless the country around here was. He was heavily involved in Arbor day activities and tree planting campaigns with the other German farmers in the area.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wolfowitz at the World Bank was a good fit!!
Posted by: xvictor on Jan 21, 2008 8:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A criminal at the head of a criminal organization.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The World Bank Owns the Amazon Basin
Posted by: topview on Jan 21, 2008 10:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When the World Bank financed Brazilia for Brazil the World Bank took the Amazon Basin as Collateral for the loan. So they own it and are selling it off for more profits. Also the World Bank is the middle man in the Oil industries.
Kissinger made a deal with OPEC to pay off the USA debt and the USA would buy the oil from OPEC.
That closed off the Huge Oil Reserves in Prudo Bay Alaska.
You Have to watch the Google Video by Linsey Williams thats called (Energy-The Non Crisis) to get the straight skinny on the deal that in making Gas at the pump cost over $3.00 a gal and going up to over $5.00 a gallon."SOON"
This video will show how corrupt the World Bank is and how the pump price is a TAX on the working people For the oil Companies.
This is a must watch video.

VIDEO Here

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Human" activity
Posted by: willymack on Jan 21, 2008 10:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is bad for the human race, and all other life as well. If some very deep fundemental changes in the way we conduct our affairs aren't made-and soon-then, we'll be headed for a bad end.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A brief review would have been nice
Posted by: Gravitas on Jan 21, 2008 12:17 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To let readers who may not be aware know that up until recently, the poorest nations in the world, including Brazil, owed the richest nations of the world billions in interest, via their debt to the World Bank. They couldn't feed their people because 3 to 4x more of their budgets were going to interest on the debt instead of education or social services. While there has been some debt forgiveness and restructuring, the problem is far from solved. So this is really about the ultra rich creating yet one more devastating problem for their own gain.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]