Bolivia Rising

Bolivia's Pablo Solon on Why the Green Economy is a wrong path to restore the equilibrium with nature and what alternatives do we have?

noreply@blogger.com (Bolivia Rising) — Thu, 17 May 2012 06:19:00 +0000

Pablo Solon

Twenty years after the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992, the environmental crisis continues to worsen. The unsustainable development model that gained dominance in the world resulted to grave loss of biodiversity, melting of polar ice caps and mountain glaciers, alarming increase in deforestation and desertification and the looming danger of an at least 4ºC increase in temperature, which will threaten life as we know it. Science is saying that we are approaching a point of no return that will change the way our planet has behaved over 650,000 years”

The United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio + 20) that will take place in Rio de Janeiro this coming June is expected by many to be a milestone opportunity to address the issue of the restoration of the equilibrium of the Earth’s system. But instead of moving the world towards a just and sustainable path, the document that is being negotiated for adoption in June is promoting new market mechanisms for the commodification and financialization of nature, life and ecosystem services under the mirage of a “Green Economy”

The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) developed the concept of “Green Economy” on the argument that the recurring energy, climate, environmental, food and financial crises are results of “gross misallocation of capital.” The UNEP analysis does not acknowledge the problems inherent in treating nature as capital, which has led to the hyper-exploitation of the Earth’s resources and further expanded the already severe inequalities between and within nations, and among societies and peoples.

Promoters of the Green Economy consider it essential (and normal) to put a price on the free services that plants, animals and ecosystems provide for the conservation of biodiversity, water purification, pollination of plants, the protection of coral reefs and regulation of the climate. For the Green Economy to work, it is necessary to identify the specific functions of ecosystems and biodiversity and assign them monetary values, evaluate their current status, set a limit after which they will cease to provide services, and put a price on the cost of their conservation in order to develop a market for each particular environmental service. The architects of Green Economy believe that the instruments of the market are powerful tools for managing the “economic invisibility of nature.”

Since the publication of “Our Common Future,” or the UN Brundtland Report in 1987, policy makers have subscribed to the idea that a healthy environment and economic growth should be mutually supportive of each other. In practice, however, over the past two decades, governments have tended to prioritize economic growth over the environment and emphasized business interests and market mechanisms in their elaborations of sustainable development.

One example of how the Green Economy is being put in practice is the initiative known as REDD (Reducing Emissions through Deforestation and Forest Degradation), which consists of isolating and measuring the natural capacity of a living forest to capture and store carbon dioxide, and predicting that the future intentions of the forest users / forest owners are to deforest that area, in order to issue certificates for “reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from avoided deforestation”. These certificates are expected to be traded in a variety of primary and derivatives markets, largely benefiting intermediaries, and yet even now there are signs that the complexity and non-transparent nature of these transactions could eventually bring about its own carbon market crash.

Nonetheless, the scheme is designed so that these certificates can be commercialized and acquired by companies in developed countries that cannot meet their climate mitigation commitments. Rather than reduce the excess carbon in the atmosphere, therefore, this “green market mechanism” at best allows pollution to continue to be emitted elsewhere. This is the essence of carbon trading. At worst, REDD runs risks of increasing overall carbon emissions, as accounting errors and falsehoods or relocated deforestation can be expected to release a steady stream of emissions, somewhere beyond the sight of the carbon credit buyers.

Despite the efforts of proponents to promote REDD+ as a viable forest conservation and climate change mitigation strategy, and the growing emphasis on putting safeguards and mechanisms to guarantee rights of indigenous peoples, many communities are concerned that REDD will cause further erosion of rights of indigenous peoples as well as other local communities over forest use, conservation and management.

Thus, REDD market mechanism, regardless of how inherently volatile and unstable it proves to be, will permit developed countries more time to continue polluting the world, while they are allowed to buy new forms of control over resources that rightfully should be in the custody of the peoples of the South. REDD illustrates many of the problems that are artificially created within carbon trading schemes. Other initiatives proposed under the paradigm of a Green Economy include the privatization of water, a push for agro-industrial business operations despite alarming impoverishment of small farmers channeled into these large-scale operations, the development of genetically modified organisms and geo-engineering amongst others.

A New Path for a Different, Better Future

The ideas of the first Rio conference and the false solutions adopted and strengthened over the last twenty years have not been able to abate the social-economic and environmental problems that continue to plague humanity and nature in this century. In order to stop the new offensive for the commodification and privatization of nature it is necessary to strengthen and articulate all the struggles in the world and in our region in defense of the commons.

Instead of putting a price on Nature we need to recognize that humans are part of Nature and that Nature is not a thing or mere supplier of resources. The Earth is a living system, it is our home and a community of interdependent beings and parts of one whole system. Nature has rules that govern its integrity, interrelationships, reproduction and transformation. In Rio+20 governments should recognize, respect and make sure that the rules of nature prevail.

Instead of applying the market rules to Nature what we need is to forge a new system based on the principles of:

peace, harmony and balance among all and with all things;
complementarity, solidarity, equality and social and environmental justice;
collective well-being and the satisfaction of the basic necessities of all;
recognition of human beings for what they are, not what they own;
elimination of all forms of colonialism, imperialism and interventionism;

We cannot keep promoting such destructive model of development that does not acknowledge the planetary limits of economic growth

New technologies should not mean limitless, reckless economic growth propelled only by capitalist motives. Scientific advances, under some circumstances, can contribute to resolve certain problems of development but cannot ignore the natural limits of the Earth system.

All countries need to produce the goods and services necessary to satisfy the fundamental needs of their populations, but by no means can they continue to tread the path of development that has led the richest countries to have an ecological footprint five times bigger than what the planet is able to support. Currently, the regenerative capacity of the planet has already exceeded more than forty percent. If this pace of over-exploitation of our Mother Earth continues, we will need two planets by the year 2030.

In an interdependent system in which human beings are only one component of the whole, it is not possible to only recognize the rights of the human part without instigating an imbalance in the system. To guarantee human rights and to restore harmony with nature, it is necessary to effectively recognize and apply the rights of Nature.

We have to end the system of wasteful and luxury-oriented consumption that privileges the elite. Developed countries must change their unsustainable patterns of production and consumption through public policies, regulations, as well as conscious and active participation of society, particularly the marginalized sections, to address the grave inequities and inequalities in resource use and access within societies and between nations.

States must guarantee the human right to water, education, health, communication, transportation, energy and sanitation. The provision of these services should be essentially public and based on efficient social management, not private business. The principal goal should be common wellbeing and not merely private profit, in order to ensure that these services reach the poorest and most marginalized sectors in an equitable manner. It is necessary to ensure the right to proper nutrition by strengthening food sovereignty policies and not by promoting agri- businesses.

Under the framework of common but differentiated responsibilities established in the 1992 Rio Declaration, the so-called developed countries must assume and pay their historical ecological debt for having contributed the most to the deterioration of the Earth system. The payment of this ecological debt by developed countries to developing countries and the sectors most affected among their own populations should replace to the greatest possible degree the ecological damage done. Developed countries should transfer financial resources from public sources and also socially and ecologically appropriate technologies required by sovereign developing countries.

Rich and developed countries must not impose trade agreements on poor and developing countries that contribute to further exploitation and degradation of nature in the latter.

The enormous resources dedicated to defense, security and war budgets by developed countries should be reduced. These resources should instead be used to address the effects of climate change and the imbalance with nature. It is inexcusable that 1.5 trillion dollars in public funding are used on these activities, while just 100 billion US dollars from public, private funds and market sources are dedicated to address the impacts of climate change in developing countries.

A financial transaction tax should be created to help build a Sustainable Development Fund to attend to the sustainable development challenges faced by developing countries. This financing mechanism should generate new, stable and additional resources for developing countries and must be managed with utmost transparency and participation by citizens and not be left to international financial institutions that refuses to change their development framework and operations

Intellectual property rights over genes, microorganisms and other forms of life are a threat to food sovereignty, biodiversity, access to medicine and other elements that are essential for the survival of low-income populations. All forms of intellectual property over life should be abolished.
The collective global response that is needed to confront the crisis we face requires structural changes. We must change the capitalist system, not the Earth system.

Republished from Focus on the Global South

Bolivia nationalises power company on May Day

noreply@blogger.com (Bolivia Rising) — Mon, 07 May 2012 00:12:00 +0000

Federico Fuentes

Bolivian President Evo Morales once again used the opportunity of May 1, the international workers’ day, to announce his left-wing government's latest nationalisation. This time, it was the turn of Transportadora de Electridad (TDE), a subsidiary of the Spanish-owned Red Electrica de Espana (REE), which controlled Bolivia’s national electricity transmission grid.

The nationalisation was another step towards meeting the long-standing demand of the Bolivian people to return privatised companies to state hands.

It was also implemented in line with the new constitution, approved by the people in 2009. The constitution states that all Bolivians have the right to access basic services and grants the state the ability to intervene into any strategic sector of the economy in order to ensure the peoples’ quality of life.

In 1997, Bolivia’s state-owned electricity transmission company was privatised as part of the neoliberal offensive to auction off the nation’s private assets to foreign transnationals.

The Spanish-owned Union Fenosa bought the company for US$39.9 millio. But within six months it had reassessed the value of the company at $74 million dollars, despite not a single extra dollar being invested in the company.

In 2002, REE purchased the company for $88.3 million and proceeded to rake in profits while bringing little benefits to Bolivia’s population. This included the failure to incorporate one-third of Bolivia’s departments (states), which were excluded from the national electricity grid.

Despite investing as little as $2.8 million in 2010, REE generate some $60 million in revenue in 2011.
In comparison, the Morales government has invested more than $200 million into the electricity sector. This has enabled the integration of the department of Beni into the national grid, with Tarija’s incorporation soon to be completed.

This leaves Pando as the final link towards establishing a comprehensive national grid.

During the ceremony to announce the nationalisation, the Minister of Hydrocarbons and Energy Juan Jose Sosa stated that the government was committed to investing a further $200 million in transmission projects over the next two years to ensure that the national grid would incorporate all nine departments.

This latest nationalisation follows on from that of three electricity generation companies in 2010. All these previously privately owned companies are once again under the control of the state-owned Empresa Nacional de Electricidad (ENDE).

It is also in line with other nationalisations such as those carried out in the area of gas, oil and telecommunications, that have sought to return natural resources and strategic sectors of the economy into state hands.

These moves have been fundamental to explaining three key changes that have occurred in Bolivia.
Firstly, the rise in government revenue generated through state greater control has underpinned the dramatic shift of wealth towards the poor majority.

As a result, the level of poverty had fallen from 60% in 2005 to 49.6% in 2010. The gap between the richest 10% and poorest 10% shrunk from 128 times more wealth to 60 times.

Secondly, the state-owned companies have been reorientated away from pursuing profit towards ensuring Bolivians have greater access to basic services. In the electricity sector this has meant the percentage of rural households with access to electricity has jumped from 20% to 50%.

Finally, greater state control and higher revenue has allowed the government to go beyond simply meeting short-term needs and starting to implement a long-term plan that seeks to place people and the environment first.

The electricity sector is a good example. Despite sitting upon Latin America’s second-largest gas reserves, the Bolivian government has set itself the objective of meeting 75% of the populations electricity needs through alternative energy sources by 2015.

Already in place are more than 40,000 photovoltaic systems providing solar energy to small rural communities and more than 60 small-scale hydroelectric dams.

In April, Vice-Minister for Electricity and Alternative Energies Miguel Fernandez announced that a further S$40 million would be ploughed in solar, wind, geothermal, small-scale hydro and biomass electricity initiatives throughout the next three years in order to make this goal a reality.

Republished from Green Left Weekly

Why should Europeans pay attention to Bolivia?

noreply@blogger.com (Bolivia Rising) — Wed, 02 May 2012 01:54:00 +0000

Kepa Artaraz

Earlier this week Spain’s credit rating was downgraded yet again, reigniting fears that the Eurozone crisis that never left might in fact accentuate and force the fourth biggest economy in the Euro to go cap in hand to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for a bailout.

Ever since the Lehman Brothers bank went belly-up in 2008, signalling the beginning of the biggest global financial crisis since the collapse of Wall Street in 1929, there have been fears of a disorderly breakup of the European monetary union and of an unprecedented economic catastrophe.

Cue in, the international financial institutional architecture, mobilised, along with national banks. They have effectively ‘nationalised’ the bad debts incurred by private investors in a weakly regulated banking sector and transferred these to the balance sheets of sovereign states. As if magic, we are all now in this together and what was once private debt is now everyone’s debt.

The IMF might have changed a lot since the 1980s when it acted as the exporter of the neoliberal ‘shock doctrine’ to indebted countries like Bolivia.[1] It might even have come to realise that employment, equality and social justice lie at the heart of any project of economic recovery.[2] And yet, the austerity medicine being dished out is the same as it was then, austerity that results in falling salaries, reduced pensions, cut welfare services and unemployment for increasingly impoverished masses.

Some have argued that neoliberalism is dead precisely because the taxpayer has had to rescue the banking system.[3]In fact, the paradox is that a financial crisis created by neoliberalism is being ‘solved’ by deepening its reach and privatising the remaining bastions of the welfare state.

The current financial crisis might have different origins to the one that afflicted Latin America in the 1980s but its results in the form of sovereign debt and conditionality-driven ‘rescue’ plans look startlingly similar. As the social pain increases, what are the populations of Greece – or Spain for that matter – meant to do? Venting their anger through the ballot box offers little reassurance since all mainstream political parties are wedded to operating within the same system. Are we forever condemned to the dictatorship of the market?[4]

Not necessarily. The last four years in Europe have seen a certain democratic rebirth in the form of citizen movements that would have been unthinkable only a decade ago. From Spain’s indignados (the indignant) to Greece’s aganaktismenoi (the outraged), to the growing numbers in the ‘occupy’ movement, spontaneous civil society movements unattached to existing political parties are starting to find their voice and demand the right to play a part in the creation of alternative societies.[5]

Given the lack of apparent grand, alternative narratives to neoliberalism, we are forced to look for the budding, small scale alternatives that are growing around us. Bolivia, where resistance to the social suffering caused by the neoliberal revolution began in the 1990s, can provide a few useful lessons and visions of what the future might hold for us. For, in the process of implementing popular responses to neoliberalism’s worst excesses, Bolivia and other Latin American countries have had a head start that is decades long. [6]

It is a well established position in the literature that, by the end of the 1980s, the levels of human suffering being dished out by neoliberalism in Bolivia led to popular discontent, effectively sowing the seeds towards grassroots mobilisation in favour of the current process of change.[7]

At the same period of time following the return to democracy, a crisis of what Bolivians have referred to as ‘partidocracy’ took hold of political institutions that, mired in corruption, were unable to represent and channel social demands. Once the masses reached the conclusion that political parties were in fact part of the problem and liberal democracy became a byword for illegitimate rule by the few, a new set of political actors stepped into the void to create new democratic spaces.[8]

Trade unions, the unquestioned political actor in their opposition to military governments had been decimated by the neoliberal revolution and by decree 21060. The political vacuum left by their loss of influence was filled the social movements. In this way, social movements became the historic agent for the refoundation of Bolivia, acting beyond simple opposition to provide alternative visions to the existing hegemonic model of politics as representative democracy; society, in the form of a society that excluded a majority of its indigenous citizens; and economy, as represented by the neoliberal order.[9]

Civil society represents the reconstitution of the collective political activity of Bolivian society and every sector of society was incorporated to become part of a process of change that began with the emancipation of indigenous peoples and their constitution as political actors. The indigenous marches of 1990 and 2002 were key milestones in this process and have been most clearly associated with the demand for a constitutional assembly.[10] This became most clearly articulated at times of national crises and popular uprisings that had common roots against the privatisation of natural resources – as was the case with water and gas in Cochabamba and El Alto during the crises of 2000 and 2003.[11]

These crises led the Bolivian population to accept indigenous demands for a constitutional assembly, a process of debate and deliberation that incorporated every sector of society, with the mandate to write a new constitution. Thus, during a process of national crisis brought to a head by the dual economic and political failings of neoliberalism, the constitutional assembly was presented as the mechanism that could deliver a resolution to this crisis by creating a roadmap for a new Bolivia on the basis of new sets of values and purpose.[12]

The story of Bolivia’s political change since then is one of miracles and frustrations in equal measure. Who in 2000 would have thought that an indigenous coca grower could become President five years later? Who could have predicted that by 2010 the traditional political parties would have all but been obliterated from the new plurinational assembly?

In spite of its limitations, Bolivia’s constitutional assembly constitutes a unique democratic experiment. The final text promises to change the country’s political sphere, by introducing a range of levels of decentralisation and a new relationship between the social movements and the state. It also redefines the relationship between the individual and the state, re-establishing the role of the state in guaranteeing social protections, integrating excluded majorities, and incorporating their traditional forms of knowledge.[13]

The constitution also proposes to regain for the state a dominant role in the country’s economic steerage whilst incorporating a plurality of forms of economic practice and property ownership that suggest the possibility of a future post-neoliberal paradigm.[14]Finally, the constitution also denounces imperialism and promises to redefine international relations, accepting the existence of interdependencies between regions and countries – just as between individuals – and building on these interdependencies through values of solidarity to deliver better futures for all. ALBA represents this collaborative experiment and a glimpse, perhaps, that better worlds are possible.

Whilst the new constitution was written and eventually approved by the Bolivian people, the political process before, during and after the production of the constitutional document provided a glimpse of the difficulties involved in renegotiating national values and power relations in a highly divided society. The 2008 political crisis following the Porvenir massacre has been followed by the current malaise that erupted with government plans to build a road through the TIPNIS national park. In between lie accusations of top level political corruption, a government that is too cosy with multinational corporations and, in spite of its anti-neoliberal and climate change rhetoric in the global stage, unable to think of development in ways that go beyond the extractivist model.

What then, is left of Bolivia as a ‘resistance movement and counter hegemonic project’ in the Latin American Region?[15] Does Bolivia in any way show European countries an image of their own future? In spite of noticeable progress in economic growth, poverty and inequality reduction and the introduction of a basic social safety net, the jury is still out on the long term potential of the current Bolivian constitution to deliver its promise in the context of long-term social cleavages. On the other hand, Bolivia’s ability to deliver political renewal and new leaderships through a healthy civil society is perhaps the best guarantee that the process of change will not become stagnant in the near future. The biggest legacy from Bolivia’s resistance to neoliberalism lies precisely in the possibilities offered by this kind of politics to give people the right to make their own decisions and commit their own mistakes.

Kepa Artaraz is lecturer in Social Policy at the University of Brighton. His book, Bolivia: Refounding the Nation, was published by Pluto in April 2012.

Notes

[1] Klein, N. (2007) The shock doctrine: the rise of disaster capitalism. London: Allen Lane.

[2] Stiglitz, J.(2011) The IMF’s change of heart. Al Jazeera, 7 May 2011. Available on http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/05/20115712428956842.html [Accessed 19 May 2011].

[3] Mason, P. (2009) Meltdown: The end of the age of greed. Verso: London.

[4] Younge, G. (2001) Democracy is no match for market power. Guardian Weekly, 08.07.11, pg 19.

[5] Douzinas, C. (2011) In Greece, democracy is born. Guardian Weekly, 24.06.11, pg 20. See also Carrión, M. (2011) Camp Sol: Spain’s ‘indignant’ give lessons in true democracy. Available on http://www.naomiklein.org/articles/2011/06/camp-sol-spains-indignant-give-lessons-true-democracy [Accessed 4 June 2011].

[6]Arze, C. and Kruse, T. (2004) The Consequences of Neoliberal Reform. NACLA Report on the Americas 38(3): 23-28.

[7] Khol, B. and Farthing, L. (2006) Impasse in Bolivia: Neoliberal hegemony and popular resistance. London: Zed Books.

[8] Prats, J. (2005) Bolivia tras el fracaso de la democracia pactada. Corte Nacional Electoral. Revista Agora, No. 3, September 2005, pp. 4-5.

[9] From Torrez, Y., Ayo, D., and Velásquez, J-C. (2007) Agenda de la Asamblea Constituyente. Cuadernos de Diálogo y Deliberación. La Paz: Corte Nacional Electoral.

[10] De la Fuente Jeria, J. (2010) El difícil parto de otra democracia: La asamblea constituyente de Bolivia. Latin American Research Review, special issue entitled ‘Living in Actually Existing Democracies’, pp. 5-26, pg 8.

[11] Assies, W (2001) David vs. Goliat en Cochabamba: los derechos del agua, el neoliberalismo y la renovación de la propuesta social en Bolivia. T'inkazos, 4 (8): 106-134. Olivera, O. and Lewis, T. (2004) Cochabamba! Water war in Bolivia. Cambridge: South End Press.

[12] Stefanoni, P. (2002) El nacionalismo indígena como identidad política: La emergencia del MAS-IPSP (1995-2003). Available on www.clacso.org.ar/ar/libros/becas/2002/mov/stefanoni.pdf [Accessed 15 April 2010].

[13] Asamblea Constituyente (2008) Nueva Constitución política del estado. Versión oficial. La Paz: Representación presidencial para la asamblea constituyente (REPAC).

[14] García Linera, A. (2008) Del neoliberalismo al modelo nacional productivo: Los ciclos de la economía Boliviana. Revista de Análisis, 22 June 2008; García Linera, A. (2008a) El nuevo modelo económico nacional productivo. Revista de Análisis, 8 June 2008.

[15] Robinson, W. (2008) Latin America and Global Capitalism. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, chapters five and six.

The Morales government: neoliberalism in disguise?

noreply@blogger.com (Bolivia Rising) — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 03:55:00 +0000

Federico Fuentes

For more than a decade Bolivia has been rocked by mass upsurges and mobilisations that have posed the necessity and possibility of fundamental political and social transformation.¹ In 2005 the social movements that led the country’s water and gas wars managed to elect a government that since then has presided over a process of change that has brought major advances.

Among these are: the adoption of a plurinational state structure that for the first time recognises the country’s indigenous majority; regaining sovereign control over vital natural resources and initial steps towards endogenous industrialisation; an ongoing agrarian reform; and the development of social programmes that have substantially improved the lives of ordinary Bolivians. Democratic rights have been reinforced; forms of self-government by indigenous communities established; and electoral processes expanded to include popular election even of the judiciary. Not least in importance, Bolivia has also become a prime participant in the movement for Latin American anti-imperialist unification and sovereignty and emerged as a major leader in the international fight against capitalist-induced climate change.

In his recent article in this journal, “Revolution against ‘Progress’”,² Jeffery Webber offers a harsh critique of the MAS government, illustrating it by reference to recent conflicts between the government and some indigenous groups involving environmental and development issues. His conclusion: the government remains committed to a neoliberal programme based on “fiscal austerity”, “low inflationary growth”, “inconsequential agrarian reform”, “low social spending” and “alliances with transnational capital”, among other policies. As such, it shares “more continuity than change with the inherited neoliberal model”.

These are sweeping assertions, and many are questionable. Webber criticises the government’s supposed “fiscal austerity”, yet omits the fact that budget spending has increased almost fourfold between 2004 and 2012. He attacks the government for seeking “low inflation” and “macroeconomic stability”, but what is his alternative: high inflation and macroeconomic instability? These were certainly traits of previous neoliberal governments. Furthermore, is it “inconsequential” that in its first five years the Morales government presided over the redistribution or titling of 41 million hectares of land to over 900,000 members of indigenous peasant communities?³ And if the government’s policy can be simply defined as one of forming alliances to benefit foreign transnationals, why is the Bolivian state currently facing 12 legal challenges in international courts initiated by these same companies?

Simply put, Webber ignores the real progress made by the Morales government in rolling back the neoliberal project in Bolivia..... read the rest of the article here

Bolivia has transformed itself by ignoring the Washington Consensus

noreply@blogger.com (Bolivia Rising) — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 23:32:00 +0000

By breaking with orthodox prescriptions for progress, Evo Morales has helped to forge a new Bolivia centred on 'living well'

Luis Hernandez Navarro

Gabriela Oviedo is a fashion model and TV personality. She is a 28-year-old brunette, almost six feet tall. Born in the Bolivian province of Santa Cruz, she was elected as the national beauty queen in 2003. In 2004, Gabriela took part in the Miss Universe pageant. There she was asked to name one of the biggest misconceptions about her country. In awkward English, she answered: "Um … unfortunately, people that don't know Bolivia very much think that we are all just Indian people from the west side of the country. It's La Paz, all the image that we reflect, is that poor people and very short people and Indian people ... I'm from the other side of the country, the east side, and it's not cold, it's very hot and we are tall and we are white people and we know English."

Gabriela's answer, heavy with racism, raised such a wave of outrage in her country that she was forced to give up the contest. Two in every three Bolivians are indigenous people. Her answer, however, was not an isolated occurrence. It reflects the persistence of a white, deeply anti-indigenous Bolivia, which survives today even though deep changes have been introduced, including the approval of anti-racist legislation.

In spite of the force of racial discrimination, on 22 January 2006, the Aymara Indian and cocalero unionist Evo Morales was elected president. Since then, the Bolivian state and society have undergone a profound transformation. The country has been decolonised. Indigenous people hold key cabinet positions in government and also in political institutions, while their standard and quality of life have been notably improved.

In the past six years, Bolivia has become one of the Latin American countries most successful at improving its citizens' standard of living. Economic indicators such as low unemployment and decreased poverty, as well as better public healthcare and education, are outstanding.

Between 2005 and 2010, the proportion of those in moderate poverty went down from 60% to 49.6%, while extreme poverty fell from 38% to 25%. Likewise, the unemployment rate decreased from 8.4% to 4%. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) points out that Bolivia is the top country in Latin America in terms of transferring resources to its most vulnerable population – 2.5% of its GNP.

According to Alicia Bárcena, executive secretary of the UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, "Bolivia is one of the few countries that has reduced inequality … the gap between rich and poor has been hugely narrowed."

One of the key tools in reducing poverty has been the expansive distribution of economic surplus among the population, through direct cash transfers and bonds in programmes such as Juancito Pinto and Juana Azurduy, the Renta Dignidad, and salary increases. These payments have contributed to increasing the number of children attending school, broadening the coverage of public pensions to alleviate extreme poverty among senior citizens, and delivering subsidies to mothers excluded from social security, so as to reduce children's mortality and expand pre- and post-natal attention.

Bolivia has been declared an illiteracy-free country. Income redistribution has fuelled a 7% increase in the internal consumption of electricity, purified water and domestic gas among sectors that didn't have access to those services before.

During 2011, the country's economy grew at 5.3%, above the Latin American average. It is not an isolated event. The economy has been constantly expanding since 2007, averaging 4.5% a year.

These economic and social successes have been attained following an alternative route to neoliberalism. Evo Morales's government did the opposite of what the Washington Consensus recommends: it nationalised hydrocarbons, electricity, telecommunications and mining; renegotiated the presence of direct foreign investment in the country; implemented an expansive fiscal policy and closed borders to the free importation of economically strategic products. The state took 34% of the economy under its control.

This exceptional performance was obtained even though remittances decreased, the United States revoked the most-favoured nation status for some Bolivian products, and in spite of a global recession. The oil income is now three times that of 2005. The tax revenues went up. The international currency reserves are up to more than $12bn dollars. The banking savings-and-loans system has been "Bolivian-ised" and the external debt has been reduced. The bid now is that Bolivia will take a "big industrial leap" in the next five years so that it ceases to be an extractor of natural resources and begins to export value-added goods.

However, the Bolivian story is not one of "progress", but of forging an alternative economy, one which stems from the original peoples and nations. At the centre of its proposal is the Suma Qamana, a notion that has been incorporated into the constitution and that is translated as "living well", meaning to be in harmony and equilibrium with other people and with nature. It is a proposal born in the community, and it is based, not in the logic of economic profitability, but on producing goods according to nature. As Evo Morales has said: "We don't believe in the linear, cumulative conception of progress and of an unlimited development at the cost of other people and of nature. To live well is to think not only in terms of per capita income, but of cultural identity, community, harmony among ourselves and with Mother Earth."

Raúl García Linera, one of Bolivia's principal political strategists, describes the current process of transformation in his country as trying to change the engine of a car while it's moving. It is, no doubt, a genuine, bold and encouraging attempt.

Republished from The Guardian

Bolivia to debut new mine contracts with Glencore

noreply@blogger.com (Bolivia Rising) — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 03:36:00 +0000

* Glencore will be first to operate under new contract

* Company will get 45 pct of profits, state gets rest

* Bolivia drafting new mining law, this to be used as model

BUENOS AIRES, March 20 (Reuters) - Global commodities giant Glencore will be the first company to operate in Bolivia under new contracts giving the state 55 percent of profits and converting the firm into a "service provider," the government said on Tuesday.

Leftist President Evo Morales aims to overhaul mining legislation to align it with a new constitution that gives the state control over non-renewable natural resources. Although the bill is still being drafted, the new Glencore contracts will take effect in the coming days.

"Glencore's contract will be the model to be incorporated in the new mining law for all operations currently in the hands of private companies," said the head of state mining firm Comibol, Hector Cordova.

Switzerland-based Glencore, the world's largest commodities trader, operates three mines in Bolivia to extract silver, zinc, lead and tin. Morales' government nationalized its Vinto tin smelter in 2007.

Other foreign companies that will have to renegotiate their contracts in Bolivia include U.S.-based Coeur d'Alene and Japan's Sumitomo, whose San Cristobal silver-zinc-lead mine accounts for at least half the country's mineral exports.

Glencore's local subsidiary, Sinchi Wayra, exported minerals worth over $300 million last year. It runs one mine under a shared-risk contract with state firm Comibol and leases the other two, paying up to 8 percent of profits.

Cordova said these contracts will be replaced by a single one giving Glencore the right to administer the mines and take 45 percent of profits, on the condition it invests at least $100 million in the next five years.

"Comibol will get 55 percent of the profits, that is the big difference," Cordova said.

In addition, the state firm will control the sale of the minerals.

Morales' government made a similar change to contracts in the key energy industry after nationalizing the sector in 2006, converting major players such as Brazil's Petrobras into service providers to state energy company YPFB.

Bolivia: Challenges along path of 'governing by obeying the people'

noreply@blogger.com (Bolivia Rising) — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 23:32:00 +0000

Federico Fuentes, February 19, 2012

A new twist in the turbulent saga surrounding a proposed roadway through indigenous land has reignited a debate raging throughout Bolivia since the middle of last year.

The controversial highway ― which would cut through the Isiboro-Secure National Park and Indigenous Territory (TIPNIS) ― has been at the centre of protests and counter-protests. It has polarised Bolivian society and divided indigenous groups that are the heart of the Evo Morales government’s social base.

Morales, Bolivia's first indigenous president, was first elected in 2005 on the back of a wave of anti-neoliberal uprisings. An elected constituent assembly drew up a new constitution, adopted by referendum, that grants unprecedented rights to the nation's indigenous majority.

But the task of transforming the poor Andean nation, the victim of hundreds of years of colonial pillage, comes with serious obstacles. The TIPNIS dispute, in which different sectors of the indigenous population have competing views and interests, reveals one such challenge.

The source of renewed debate was the February 9 decision by parliament to pass a law approving a process to consult indigenous communities within TIPNIS about the roadway. This places the future of the project, which the government views as a strategic necessity to develop Bolivia, in the hands of those that will be most affected.

The government has also called on Bolivia’s main social organisations to help draft a new law to set the legal parametres for future consultations, a right enshrined in the new constitution.

The aim is to set up a framework for greater popular participation and overcome the rising number of local conflicts of various development projects.

These moves may help rebuild fractured alliances and expand forms of participatory democracy. Or they may deepen rifts among Morales supporters.

A key factor will be how well the government isolates increasingly intransigent forces on both sides of the debate.

Two marches, two laws

The conflict first erupted in July last year. The TIPNIS Subcentral the legal bearers of the TIPNIS collective land title that is home to Yuracare, Chiman and Moxe indigenous communities said it would march onto the capital La Paz to oppose the proposed roadway.

Community leaders raised the lack of consultation and concerns over the impact the road could have on local communities.

The proposed march quickly gained support from two important indigenous organisations: the Confederation of Indigenous Peoples of Bolivia (CIDOB), which unites 34 lowland indigenous peoples, and the Council of Ayllus and Markas of Qullasuyu (CONAMAQ), comprised of 16 small indigenous communities.

After almost 70 days and a police attack, the march reached La Paz in October. Protesters succeeded in getting parliament to approve a law banning a highway through TIPNIS.

On enacting the law, Morales said his government was making good on its slogan of “governing by obeying”. He said those within TIPNIS who supported the highway would have to take their views up with their community leaders.

By December, a counter-march had been initiated by the Indigenous Council of the South (CONISUR), which groups some of the indigenous communities within TIPNIS and in “Poligono Seven” (a zone within TIPNIS but not part of the collective title).

Poligono Seven, whose population greatly outnumbers that of local indigenous peoples within the rest of TIPNIS, is mainly home to outside indigenous campesinos (peasants) who, searching for land to till, have settled in the area.

The CONISUR march received support from Bolivia’s three main national indigenous campesino groups and nearby coca-grower unions. All said the highway is essential to providing their communities with access to basic services and markets at which to sell their produce.

When the CONISUR march arrived in La Paz 39 days later, the government encouraged leaders of the first march to meet with CONISUR representatives to try to resolve the dispute.

When the request was rejected by CIDOB and the TIPNIS Subcentral, parliamentarians began meeting with CONISUR to discuss a new law to allow TIPNIS communities to decide the project's fate.

However, critics of the new law, including CIDOB and TIPNIS Subcentral leaders, say the purpose of the consultation process is to reverse the government's decision after the first march and open the way to allow the road to be built.

CIDOB leaders have pledged to organise another march to La Paz to oppose the recent moves. They have ruled out taking part in drafting a general law on consultations.

Let the people decide

The TIPNIS dispute reveals two key dilemmas the Morales government faces in making the concept of "governing by obeying" real.

Bolivian vice-president Alvaro Garcia Linera said in a November 28 speech: "To govern by obeying is to affirm every day that the sovereign is not the state. It is the people, who express themselves not only every five years by the vote, but each day they speak and put forward their needs, expectations and collective requirements.

However, as Garcia Linera noted and the TIPNIS dispute reveals, "the people are not something homogeneous. There are social classes, there are identities, there are regions. The people are very diverse.

There is a dilemma arising from tensions created when a project strategic to overall national development encounters resistance from those who will be locally affected.

Few in Bolivia, including those opposed to the current proposal, question the need for a roadway to connect Bolivia's isolated northern Amazonian region with the country's centre and west.

Given this, Garcia Linera said the role of those in government is not to substitute for the people but to harmonise the voices of the people, to synthesise its concerns.

Analysing the government's handling of the TIPNIS dispute, Garcia Linera said February 4 the government had made two errors. These were, first, not consulting communities about the highway, and then failing to consult communities on the law that banned any highway through TIPNIS.

He said: “We have to correct both errors, and what is the best way to correct both errors? Let the [people] that live there decide… that is the most democratic, the most just manner …

“The [people] there, those that suffer, should decide if there should be a roadway.”

Such an approach, combined with calling on Bolivia's social movements to help draft a general law on consultation, stands in stark contrast to the record of previous neoliberal governments.

However, implementing this complex and difficult task will require overcoming two immediate challenges.

Challenges and opportunities

The first is confronting the growing alliance between some indigenous leaders opposed to Morales government policies such as the roadway and elements of Bolivia’s traditional elites. These elites were behind the wave of violence unleashed against indigenous peoples during the first Morales term.

While quick to denounce the Morales government, CIDOB leaders recently praised the right-wing Santa Cruz governor. They signed an agreement providing the indigenous organisation with a post in the Santa Cruz governorship.

The agreement has drawn fire even from CIDOB allies. On January 26, TIPNIS Subcentral president Fernando Vargas publicly rejected the move, saying CIDOB leaders had “put their foot in it” by signing such an agreement.

But CIDOB’s deal with the Santa Cruz governor does not seem to be an aberration. A recent string of events point to a burgeoning union between these traditional enemies.

This includes the alliance forged between indigenous deputies and right-wing parties in the Santa Cruz departmental council against the Morales-led Movement Towards Socialism (MAS), a favour repaid with more than US$3.5 million for development projects in CIDOB communities.

There was also the comment by CIDOB leader Lazaro Tacoo on December 14 that indigenous people should “forgive” the Santa Cruz elite for its violent attacks against them, “as only now are they recognising the importance of indigenous peoples”.

The government faces the challenge of isolating those forces seeking alliances with the violent right wing and rebuilding a strong alliance with lowland indigenous groups.

However, Pablo Stefanoni, a critical sympathiser of the Morales government, wrote in a February 13 Pagina Siete article that this will require confronting "the idea held by a sector of the government of imposing a strategic defeat on the lowlands indigenous peoples in order to advance with development projects".

This perspective is seen in the continued insistence of some government officials that the only possible path for the roadway is the one proposed.

However, Pablo Solon, a former Bolivian ambassador to the United Nations and critic of the government’s treatment of the TIPNIS issue, said it is incumbent on the government to prove that there is no alternative route. This is needed to show the consultation process is being carried out in good faith.

Solon proposed a commission made up of representatives from the TIPNIS Subcentral, CONISUR, the governors of Beni and Cochabamba and the government, along with engineers and environmentalists.

Such a body could study all possible alternative routes, taking into consideration the economic, environmental and social impact of each one.

“Only on the basis of all these alternatives is it possible to then carry out a serious and responsible consultation,” Solon said.

Such a move would complement other positive steps that have been taken towards defusing tensions. These include the February 14 announcement by the president of the Bolivian senate that the consultation process will not involve outside indigenous groups that have settled in Poligono Seven.

Instead, the process will be coordinated in agreement between the government and the three indigenous peoples within TIPNIS.

The proposal to directly involve different social movements in collectively debating how best to carry out consultation represents a further advance in expanding decision-making powers to local communities and social movements.

It may also prove an important step in broadening the necessary debate on how to flesh out the constitution’s provisions on indigenous autonomy and land reform.

This entails dealing with complex issues, such as how best to tackle poverty and develop Bolivia’s economy while protecting the environment and the rights of indigenous communities.

La Jornada interviews Bolivia’s vice president Alvaro Garcia Linera. Moving beyond capitalism is a universal task

noreply@blogger.com (Bolivia Rising) — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 02:36:00 +0000

By Felipe Stuart Cournoyer. Luis Hernández Navarro interviews Bolivian Vice President Álvaro García Linera.

Introduction by Felipe Stuart Cournoyer

Bolivia’s Vice President Álvaro García Linera brought a message of hope and anti-imperialist commitment to Mexico in the first week of February. Speaking to an overflow assembly of students and university personnel at Mexico City’s UNAM (National Autonomous University), he said that the government led by President Evo Morales welcomes social movement protests and conflict. The more, the better.

“The struggle is our nourishment, our peace. It does not overwhelm us. Absolute calm frightens us. Our opponents believe the struggle will wear us down. On the contrary, it nourishes us.”

The UNAM’s Economics Research Institute (IIE) sponsored the vice president’s address on “Bolivia: achievements and challenges of transformation.”

García Linera described the MAS (Movement towards Socialism) administration as a “government of social movements.” Nevertheless, he recognized that in the past three years “tensions” have arisen between the government and social movements, between the need for industrialization and for protecting the environment, and between collective social needs and particular corporatist or sectoral interests.

“I am not complaining. I am merely describing what is happening in a revolutionary process. We have chosen to ride these contradictions, always keeping this in mind – everything that favors the broad masses is suitable, everything that enables common action is suitable. Sometimes you stumble, and certainly over time other kinds of contradictions will emerge… [but] any revolutionary process stagnates if it does not have contradictions.”¹

The Mexican daily La Jornada featured an interview with García Linera in its February 7 edition. Journalist Luis Hernández Navarro, who conducted the interview, described the Bolivian vice president as “one of today’s most important Latin American left intellectuals.”

“He has theorized the Bolivian experience of transformation as no one has done, that is, with originality, depth and freshness. And today the Bolivian experience is an obligatory and ever stronger point of reference for the popular movement in Latin America. García Linera has a profound but far from doctrinaire command of classical Marxism.”

García Linera analyzes the revolution underway in Bolivia as a “post-neoliberal” and “post-capitalist transition” led by its indigenous majority.

Today, he argues, the “subjects of politics and the real institutions of power are now found in the indigenous, plebian arena. Today, the real power of the state is located within what were once called ‘conflict scenarios’ such as trade unions and communities. And those previously condemned to be silent subaltern subjects are today’s policy makers.”

García Linera thinks that the current transformation underway in Bolivia is more profound than any previous revolutionary upsurge in his landlocked country. How far can this emancipation struggle go? He believes the answer to that question is to be found not just in Bolivia, but in the interplay with other struggles throughout the continent. “We place our hope of moving beyond capitalism in the expansion of agrarian and urban communitarianism, knowing that this is a universal task, not just that of a single country.” In that vein, he points to the need for revolutionary governments to ally regionally and act as supranational states, while always respecting national sovereignty and cultures.

Translated for Axis of Logic by Felipe Stuart Cournoyer

Journalist Luis Hernández Navarro’s interview with Álvaro García Linera

LHN – You have governed Bolivia for six years. Has progress towards decolonization of the state really been accomplished?

AGL – In Bolivia, the fundamental fact we have experienced has been the change in role of the people making up the demographic majority in the past and today – the indigenous peoples. Previously, because of the brutality of the [European] invasion and the burden from centuries of domination, which permeated the outlook of both the ruling classes and the subservient classes, indigenous peoples were condemned to be peasants, toilers, informal artisans, porters or waiters. Now they are ministers (both men and women), deputies, senators, directors of public companies, constitution writers, supreme court magistrates, governors, and president.

Decolonization is a process of dismantling the institutional, social, cultural, and symbolic structures that tied peoples’ daily activities to the interests, hierarchies, and narratives imposed by external powers. Colonialism means territorial domination imposed by force that over time becomes “second nature.” It becomes etched into “normal” behavior, daily routine, and the mundane perceptions of the dominated peoples. Therefore, dismantling the machinery of domination requires a lot of time. In particular, time is needed to modify domination that has come to be the common outlook, to modify the cultural habits of people.

The organizational forms of the contemporary indigenous movement – communal, agrarian, and union – with their style of assembly deliberation, traditional rotation of posts, and, in some cases, common control of means of production, are today the centers of political decision making and a good part of the economy in Bolivia.

Today, to influence the state budget or to know the government agenda, it does not at all help to rub shoulders with senior officials of the International Monetary Fund, the Inter-American Development Bank, or U.S. and European embassies. Today the state power circuits pass through the debates and decisions of indigenous, worker and neighborhood assemblies.

The subjects of politics and the real institutions of power are now found in the indigenous, plebian arena. Today, the real power of the state is located within what were once called “conflict scenarios” such as trade unions and communities. And those previously condemned to be silent subaltern subjects are today’s policy makers.

This opening-up of the horizon of historical possibility to indigenous peoples – so they can be farmers, laborers, bricklayers, house workers, but also foreign ministers, senators, ministers or justices – is the greatest and most egalitarian social revolution in Bolivia since its founding. The displaced noble ruling classes use an arid and derogatory phrase to designate the “holocaust” of these last six years: “Indians in power.”

LHN – How should the economic model that has been implemented be characterized? Is it an expression of 21st century socialism? Is it a form of post-neoliberalism?

AGL – Basically, it is a post-neoliberal model, a post-capitalist transition. Led by the indigenous movement, it has involved regaining control of natural resources that were in foreign hands (gas, oil, some minerals, water, electricity) and putting them in state hands, while other resources such as government lands, large estates, and forests have come under community control of indigenous peoples and farmers.

Today the state is the main wealth generator in the country. That wealth is not valorized as capital; it is redistributed throughout society through bonuses, rents, direct social benefits to the population, the freezing of utility rates and basic fuel prices, and subsidies to agricultural production. We try to prioritize wealth as use value over exchange value. In this regard, the state does not behave as a collective capitalist in the state-capitalist sense, but acts as a redistributor of collective wealth among the working classes and as a facilitator of the material, technical and associative capacities of farmer, community, and urban craft production modes. We place our hope of moving beyond capitalism in this expansion of agrarian and urban communitarianism, knowing that this is a universal task, not just that of a single country.

LHN – How does the process of regional integration appear to you in Bolivia? What role do the United States and Spain play? What influence do China, Russia, and Iran have?

AGL –The Latin American continent is going through an exceptional historical cycle. Many of the governments are revolutionary and progressive. Neoliberal governments tend to appear as reactionary. And at the same time, the Latin American economy has undertaken internal initiatives that are enabling it to vigorously address the effects of the global crisis. In particular, the importance of regional markets and links with Asia has defined a new kind of continental economic architecture. We must concentrate on deepening this regional articulation through projecting, if possible, a kind of regional state composed of states and nations. Let’s act as a regional state with respect to utilization and global negotiation of the great strategic wealth we possess (oil, minerals, lithium, water, agriculture, biodiversity, light industry, a young and skilled workforce). Internally, let’s act with respect for state sovereignty and the regional national identities found on the continent. Only then can we have our own voice and force in the course of the dynamic globalization of social life.

LHN – Is Washington actively sabotaging the ongoing transformation in Bolivia?

AGL – The U.S. government has never accepted that Latin American nations define their own destiny because it has always considered us as part of its area of political influence regarding its territorial security, and as its catchment basin of natural and social wealth. It reacts to any dissent with this colonial approach by targeting the insurgent nation. The sovereignty of the people is the number one enemy of U.S. policy.

This has happened to Bolivia over these last six years. We have nothing against the U.S. government or its people. But no one – absolutely no one – should come here and tell us what to do, say or think. We cannot accept that. And when, as a government of social movements, we began to lay the material foundations of state sovereignty with the nationalization of gas, when we broke the embarrassing influence of the embassies in ministerial decisions, when we defined a policy of national unity to confront the openly separatist tendencies latent in regional oligarchies, the U.S. embassy not only financially supported the conservative forces, but organized and led them politically, brutally interfering in our internal affairs. That forced us to expel the ambassador and later that country’s drug enforcement agency (DEA).

Since then conspiracy mechanisms have become more sophisticated: they use non-governmental organizations, infiltrate indigenous groups through third parties, and try to divide the popular sectors, while projecting parallel leaderships. This was recently demonstrated by the flurry of calls from the [U.S.] embassy itself to some indigenous leaders of the Territorio Indígena y Parque Nacional Isiboro Sécure (TIPNIS - Isiboro Sécure Indigenous Territory and National Park) march last year.

Come what may, we seek respectful diplomatic relations, but we are also on guard to repel foreign intervention, whether “high” or “low” intensity.

LHN – Some sectors on the left have argued that the conservative bloc has managed to regroup and take the offensive, while the social movement that brought the MAS to power has been absorbed by institutional politics. Is this a correct assessment?

AGL – Today’s conservative bloc, comprised of foreign-oriented oligarchies, has no alternative project for society, no project capable of articulating a general will to power. The current Bolivian political horizon is marked by a virtuous tripod – plurinationality (indigenous peoples and nations in command of the state), autonomy (territorial devolution of power), and a pluralist economy (state-articulated coexistence of various modes of production).

With the temporary defeat of the right-wing neoliberal economic and social project, what today characterizes Bolivian politics is the emergence of “creative tensions” within the national-popular bloc actually in power. After the great moments of mass ascendancy, during which a universal ideal of great transformations was launched, the social movement in some cases is now undergoing a process of corporative retreat. For a time local interests tend to prevail over national concerns, or organizations get caught up in internal struggles for control of public posts. But new, unforeseen themes on how to lead the revolutionary process also emerge. Such is the case with the issue of defending the rights of Mother Earth where tensions arise in relation to popular demands to industrialize natural resource use.

As you see, it’s a matter of contradictions among the people, of tensions that yield to collective debate on how to carry forward revolutionary changes. And that is healthy, it is democratic, and it is the fulcrum for life-giving renewal of action by social movements. Even though these contradictions could be used by imperialism and the lurking rightist forces that in a transvestite ventriloquist style project their long-term interests through some popular subjects and through discourse that is seemingly anti-globalization and environmental.

LHN – In September last year, the march of indigenous peoples in defense of TIPNIS and against building a road was repressed by the police. This was presented to the public as a loss of indigenous support for the government of Evo Morales. It was stated that the Bolivian government persisted in building the road because it had received financial support from the Brazilian oil firm OAS.² Is this true?

AGL – The indigenous peoples of Bolivia, as in Guatemala, are a majority of the inhabitants. Sixty-two percent of Bolivians are indigenous peoples. The main indigenous nations are the Aymara and Quechua, with about six million people located mainly in the highlands, valleys, the Yungas zones, and also in the lowlands. Other indigenous nations are the Guarani, Moxenos, Yuracare, Tsimane, Ayoreos, and another 29 who live in the lowlands of the Amazon, Chaco, and Chiquitania regions. The total population of these low-lying nations is estimated at between 250,000 and 300,000 people.

The conflict over TIPNIS has involved some indigenous peoples of the lowlands, but the government retains support from indigenous peoples of the highlands and valleys, who make up 95 percent of Bolivia’s indigenous population. And most of the mobilized indigenous people were leaders from other regions, not actually from TIPNIS. They have systematic support of environmental NGOs, many of them funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), plus the backing of the major private television communication networks, owned by old members of the separatist oligarchy – networks that have a strong influence on the formation of middle-class public opinion. More recently, another march has arrived in La Paz, also comprised of lowland indigenous people and a larger number of TIPNIS inhabitants. They are demanding the construction of the highway through the park, arguing that it is not possible that they be sidelined without their rights to health, education, and transport, which they can today access only after days of walking.

The problem is complex. Entangled in it are issues specific to revolutionary debate, with themes such as the delicate balance between respect for Mother Earth and the urgent need to link the country together after centuries in which its regions have been isolated. It involves the discussion of the highland indigenous people’s organic relation with, and their leadership in, the plurinational state – which is different from the still ambiguous relationship the lowlands indigenous peoples have with the plurinational state.

But what is also involved is the regional strategy of the Santa Cruz oligarchy to prevent this road, which would [once in operation] deprive them of corporate control of economic activity throughout the Amazon region. The U.S. is interested in controlling the Amazon as its reservoir of water and biodiversity, and in promoting divisions between indigenous leaders in order to create conditions for expelling indigenous peoples from state power. There is also the interest of some NGOs that are accustomed to using the parks for large private businesses.

In any case, in the midst of this tangle of interests, we as a government must be able to democratically resolve internal tensions, and to uncover and neutralize counterrevolutionary interests that often dress in pseudo-revolutionary costume.

LHN – Why build this road despite the opposition of a portion of the population?

AGL – For three reasons. First, to ensure that the indigenous population of the park has access to constitutional rights and guarantees: to safe water so that children do not die from stomach infections; to schools with teachers who teach in their language, preserving their culture and enriching it with other cultures. To provide access to markets for their produce without having to navigate on rafts for a week to be able to sell their rice or to buy salt at ten times the price charged in any neighborhood convenience store.

The second reason is that the road will for the first time link the Amazon region, a third of Bolivia, with other regions of the valleys and highlands. Bolivia has kept a third of its territory isolated. That has allowed state sovereignty to be replaced by the power of landlords, foreign logging firms, or drug dealers.

And the third reason is geopolitical. The separatist tendencies of the oligarchy, who were about to split apart Bolivia in 2008, were contained because they were defeated politically during the September coup that year, and because some of its material agro-industrial base was taken over by the state.

However, the reactionary separatist tendencies still have one last economic pillar, the control of the Amazonian economy. In order to reach the rest of the country, Amazonians must rely on processing and financing by firms under the control of oligarchs based in Santa Cruz. A road that directly links the Amazon with the valleys and highlands would radically reconfigure the structure of regional economic power, breaking down the last material base of the separatists and leading to a new geo-economic axis for the state. The paradox of this is that history has placed some leftists in the position of becoming the best and most vocal advocates for the most conservative and reactionary interests in the country.

LHN – Some argue that Bolivia remains a supplier of raw materials in the international market and that the development model in practice (which some analysts have termed ‘extractive’) does not question this role. Is this true? Does it involve a phase of accumulation that is accompanied by a redistribution of income?

AGL – Neither the extractive or non-extractive approach, nor industrialism is a vaccine against injustice, exploitation, and inequality. In themselves, they are neither productive modes nor ways of managing wealth. They are technical systems for processing nature through labor. And depending on how they use these technical systems, on how they manage wealth thus produced, economic regimes may have more or less justice, with or without labor exploitation.

Original Source (in Spanish): La Jornada

Republished from Axis of Logic

Notes

1. See Emir Olivares Alonso’s February 8 report “La revolución en Bolivia, a caballo de las contradicciones, dice García Linera” in the Mexican daily La Jornada.

2. Translator's note: According to its website, OAS is a heavy construction and engineering company, not an oil company. Based in São Paulo, Brazil, it operates in fifteen countries of South and Central America, the Caribbean, and Africa. See also Business News Americas.

Bolivia Seizes Pan American Energy’s Stake in Gas Field

noreply@blogger.com (Bolivia Rising) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 04:08:00 +0000

By Alex Emery and Matthew Craze

Jan. 24 (Bloomberg) -- Bolivia seized Pan American Energy LLC’s stake in the $1.6 billion Caipipendi natural-gas project, saying the Argentine company failed to meet investment targets.

State oil company Yacimientos Petroliferos Fiscales Bolivianos, known as YPFB, will take over Pan American’s 25 percent stake in the field, Energy Minister Juan Jose Sosa said today. YPFB will evaluate Buenos Aires-based Pan American’s investment to date in a bid to conciliate, Sosa said.

“Pan American hasn’t contributed its percentage, so we’re carrying out an obligatory transfer of the contract to a YPFB subsidiary,” Sosa said in a broadcast by La Paz-based Radio Panamericana.

Oil and gas output has fallen in the Andean nation since President Evo Morales raised taxes and started seizing refineries and fields in 2006 to increase state control over Bolivia’s natural resources. Private investment in the industry plunged 69 percent to $271 million in 2009, the latest data available, from $865 million a decade earlier, according to YPFB.

“Bolivia has been very clear about a state-controlled model,” Moody’s analyst Gabriel Torres said in a telephone interview from New York. “But they need to move to the next level and not make it harder for investors.”

Moody’s rates Bolivia B1, four levels below investment grade.

Argentina Contract

Repsol YPF SA and BG Group Plc control the Caipipendi field, which is slated to begin production this year. Bolivia is counting on the field to help boost the country’s natural-gas output by 40 percent to 66 million cubic meters a day by 2014 to meet its supply contracts with Brazil and Argentina.

Bolivia agreed in 2010 to almost quadruple gas supply to Argentina to 27.7 million cubic meters per day by 2026. Bolivia currently exports 30 million cubic meters of gas a day to Brazil and 7.7 million cubic meters to Argentina, according to YPF.

Pan American won’t comment until it’s officially notified of the government’s decision, a company official who declined to be named citing company policy, said by telephone. Repsol spokesman Kristian Rix declined to comment in an e-mailed response to questions. BG didn’t immediately return telephone calls seeking comment.

Natural gas for February delivery rose 2.9 cents to $2.554 per million British thermal units on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Gas, which is down 44 percent from a year ago, fell to $2.231 on Jan. 23, the lowest price since February 2002.

Bolivia's state airline catapults to market leader

noreply@blogger.com (Bolivia Rising) — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 22:46:00 +0000

CARLOS VALDEZ, Associated Press

LA PAZ, Bolivia (AP) — In just three years, Bolivia's state airline has pushed aside private carriers, bucking an international trend toward privatization while becoming the leader in domestic flights for a poor Andean country where flying remains a luxury.

Boliviana de Aviacion has abolished first class and sells all seats for the same low prices, marketing the flights with a socialist stamp in keeping with President Evo Morales' insistence that "all are equal."

The story of how BoA has managed to fly high while governments elsewhere have been privatizing or bailing out their state-run carriers reflects shrewd timing in filling a void in the market, as well as cut-rate fares that have attracted a growing clientele.

BoA now controls about half of Bolivia's domestic air travel market. As its routes and earnings have grown, it has announced plans to expand its fleet by buying as many as six new Embraer 190 planes from Brazil.

"BoA has been an interesting bet on the government's part," said Armando Mendez, an analyst and former president of Bolivia's Central Bank. "Little by little, it has captured more acceptance and it competes with the private company AeroSur."

Mendez said BoA seems to be bringing healthy competition to Bolivia, where five airlines battle in a market of about 1.5 million passengers a year. The airline has successfully filled a gap left by the 2007 failure of Lloyd Aereo Boliviano, a former state-run company that went bankrupt after failed attempts to privatize it.

The airline has also tried some creative marketing, including teaming up with a lingerie store last month to offer an in-flight fashion show featuring Colombian and Bolivian models parading down the aisles of a Boeing 737 in revealing underwear.

"Let yourself get carried away," BoA urges potential customers.

BoA won over clients by offering two-for-one deals during its first year in 2009. Since then, it has kept fares low, and its main competitor AeroSur has accused BoA of unfair pricing tactics and subsidies.

While AeroSur charges about $245 for a round-trip adult ticket between the cities of La Paz and Santa Cruz this month, BoA charges about $190. It also offers discounts for the elderly and children.

The airline has been a rare success among various attempts by Morales' government to administer state-owned enterprises.

Since taking office in 2006, Morales has increased government revenues by declaring Bolivia's natural gas deposits national patrimony and securing a greater share of royalties for the state. While boosting Bolivia's income, the tactic has also largely discouraged foreign investment.

Bolivia similarly has a wealth of minerals including tin and silver, but mining production has been declining and several small government-run companies haven't managed to reverse the trend.

The country's lithium riches have gone untapped, largely because of Morales' insistence that any extraction partner also manufacture in Bolivia the lithium batteries expected to power the electronic cars of the future.

BoA is an exception in part because air travel is growing in the country as well as in Latin America overall.

Using a fleet of six leased Boeing 737s, the airline now offers international flights to Buenos Aires, Sao Paulo and Lima, and has plans to add Caracas and Havana.

The number of passengers flying in Bolivia has increased 35 percent in the past six years, authorities say.

Airlines' operating profits grew to $518 million in Latin America during the third quarter of 2011, up from $513 million a year earlier, according to the International Air Transport Association. That contrasted with declining profits elsewhere.

"Right now Latin America is very, very hot in the sense that it's very rapidly growing," said Helane Becker, an airlines analyst at Dahlman Rose & Co. in New York. "You can't get seats on flights, the pricing has gone through the roof and I think the government sees that."

A new state-run airline launch is rare these days, with privatization far more common.

Italy's national carrier Alitalia was privatized in 2008. Greece sold off debt-ridden state carrier Olympic Airlines in 2009.

"State-run airlines are becoming less common worldwide as governments try to get out of the taxpayer costs and union politics of running an airline," said Ray Neidl, an analyst at Maxim Group LLC in New York.

But Latin America's leftist governments have bucked that free-market trend.

Argentina's government expropriated Aerolineas Argentinas in 2008 as it teetered on the edge of bankruptcy. It spent about $760 million on the company during 2011, much of it to cover losses from unprofitable routes and the burden of frequent strikes.

In Venezuela, President Hugo Chavez's government has subsidized Conviasa since its 2004 launch and this month announced plans to buy six new planes.

In Bolivia, Morales' government initially spent $25 million to launch BoA in 2009. Vice President Alvaro Garcia said last month that the airline lost $6 million in its first year, "but in 2010 it stabilized and achieved earnings of more than $4 million, aside from the payment of $34 million in taxes."

Economy Minister Luis Arce said that between September 2010 and September 2011, the company's earnings totaled about $90 million, while its operating costs were about $78 million.

BoA's success has added to a bitter political feud with Morales opponent Humberto Roca, AeroSur's majority owner.

Roca fled into exile in the United States in 2010 after Bolivian authorities accused him of illegal enrichment and began investigating his fortune. He denies wrongdoing.

"The government wants to take over the airline market, and that involves sinking AeroSur," Roca said last year.

Bolivia's state transport authority ruled against AeroSur SA in a 2009 complaint, saying there was no unfair competition.

Government officials defend BoA's approach saying it's aimed at creating a bigger state role in the sector. BoA manager Ronald Casso has said the carrier needed to aggressively price its fares to compete with AeroSur's virtual monopoly.

BoA became the top domestic carrier in 2010, while AeroSur has compensated for domestic losses with its international flights. Two other private airlines, Aerocon and Amaszonas, fly in Bolivia, as well as the military-run airline Transporte Aereo Militar, or TAM.

For BoA, the upward trend looks set to continue. Its number of passengers grew 21 percent in the first 10 months of 2011 compared to the same period in 2010.

Morales last month proposed to buy six Embraer 190 jets during a meeting with Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff in Caracas. Two planes would be delivered yearly between 2013 and 2015.

But Mendez warns that investing so much could be misguided. Each jet costs an estimated $35 million.

"The recommendation we make to the government is that while BoA is clearly a company that's growing, don't buy planes," Mendez said. "The business is in leasing them."

Associated Press writers Paola Flores in La Paz, Debora Rey in Buenos Aires, Argentina, Ian James in Caracas, Venezuela, and AP Airlines Writer Josh Freed in Minneapolis contributed to this report.

Proposal of Bolivia to Rio+20

noreply@blogger.com (Bolivia Rising) — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 05:21:00 +0000

The Rights of Nature

The proposals developed by the Plurinational State of Bolivia bring together and build upon the progress made in the World Charter for Nature (1982), the Rio Declaration (1992), the Earth Charter (2000), and the World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth (2010):

I. A DEEPER COMMITMENT TO SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN THE 21ST CENTURY

1. In this century, the central challenges of sustainable development are: on the one hand, to overcome poverty and the tremendous inequalities that exist and, on the other hand, reestablish the equilibrium of the Earth system. Both objectives are intrinsically linked and one cannot be reached independently of the other.

2. It is essential to recognize and affirm that growth has limits. The pursuit of unending development on a finite planet is unsustainable and impossible. The limit to development is defined by the regenerative capacity of the Earth’s vital cycles. When growth begins to break that balance, as we see with global warming, we can no longer speak of it as development, but rather, the deterioration and destruction of our home. A certain level of growth and industrialization is needed to satisfy basic needs and guarantee the human rights of a population, but this level of “necessary development” is not about permanent growth, but rather, balance among humans and with nature.

3. New technologies will not allow unending economic growth. Scientific advances, under some circumstances, can contribute to resolve certain problems of development but can’t ignore the natural limits of the Earth system.

4. The main challenge for the eradication of poverty is not to grow forever, but to achieve an equitable distribution of the wealth that is possible under the limits of the Earth system. In a world in which 1% of the population controls 50% of the wealth of the planet, it will not be possible to eradicate poverty or restore harmony with nature.

5. Sustainable development seeks to eradicate poverty in order to live well, not generate wealthy people who live at the expense of the poor. The goal is the satisfaction of basic human needs in order to allow for the development of human capabilities and human happiness, strengthening community among human beings and with Mother Earth.

6. To end poverty and achieve an equitable distribution of wellbeing, the basic resources and companies should be in the hands of the public sector and society. Only a society that controls its principal sources of income can aspire to a just distribution of the benefits needed to eliminate poverty.

7. The so-called “developed” countries must reduce their levels of over-consumption and overexploitation of resources of the world in order to reestablish harmony among human beings and with nature, allowing for the sustainable development of all developing countries.

8. Developing countries should realize their right to development following patterns and paradigms that are distinct from those of developed countries. It is not sustainable or viable for all countries to follow the example of developed countries without causing the collapse of our Earth system. The ecological footprint of the developed countries is between 3 and 5 times larger than the average ecological footprint that the Earth system can sustain without an impact on its vital cycles.

9. Sustainable development can only be achieved from a global perspective and cannot be achieved only in the national level. The wellbeing of a country is only sustainable if it also serves to contribute to the wellbeing of the entire Earth system. The so-called developed countries are still far from reaching sustainable development.

10. Sustainable development should ensure equilibrium among the three pillars – social, economic, and environmental – which are interrelated, preserving the fundamental principle of common but differentiated responsibility.

II. THE NEW EMERGING CHALLENGE: RESTORING THE EQUILIBRIUM OF THE EARTH SYSTEM

11. The emerging challenges of the 21st Century are the product of exaggerated ambition and accumulation of wealth concentrated in a few sectors, the exacerbation and combination of different contradictions that were present in the last century. The various crises that exist in the areas of food, energy, the environment, climate, finance, water, and even institutions have reached chronic levels and are feeding off of one another, in some cases to the point of no return.

12. We are living an environmental crisis that, as it deepens, threatens the existence of human beings and life as a whole. The Earth is a living system and the source of life. It is an indivisible, interdependent and interrelated community comprised of human beings, nature, the atmosphere, hydrosphere, and geosphere. The Earth system has intrinsic laws that regulate its functioning, articulating the physical, chemical, biological and ecological elements in a manner that makes life possible. Through the term Mother Earth, we express this relationship of belonging to a system and respect for our home.

13. Human activity is altering the dynamics and functioning of the Earth system to a degree never before seen. The capitalist system is the principal cause of the imbalance because it puts the rules of the market and the accumulation of profit above the laws of nature. Nature is not simply a sum of elements, it’s not a source of resources that can be exploited, modified, altered, privatized, commercialized and transformed without any consequences.

14. Human beings and nature are at the center of concerns for sustainable development. It is essential to get beyond the anthropocentric vision. Until now, no species besides Man has been able to modify the characteristics of the planet in such a substantial way and in such a short period of time. It is essential to restore and guarantee the existence, integrity, interrelation, interaction and regeneration of the Earth system as a whole and of all of its components in order to achieve a sustainable development that is capable of confronting the multiple crises facing humanity and the planet today.

III. TOOLS FOR FIXING THE PERSISTENT GAPS AND ACHIEVE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

15. To reestablish harmony with nature, we must recognize and respect the intrinsic laws of nature and its vital cycles. Not only do human beings have a right to a healthy life, but so do the other components and species belonging to the system we call nature. In an interdependent and interrelated system like the planet Earth, it is not possible to recognize the rights of just the human part of the system without affecting the whole. Just as human beings have rights, the Mother Earth also has the right to exist, the right to maintain its vital cycles, the right to regeneration, the right to be free from structural alteration, and the right to relate to the other parts of the Earth system. In order to reestablish balance with nature, it is necessary to clearly establish the obligations of humans toward nature, and to recognize that nature has rights that should be respected, promoted, and defended.

16. We have to end the system of consumption, waste and luxury. Millions of people are dying of hunger in the poorest parts of the globe, while the richest spend millions of dollars are spent to combat obesity. Developed countries must change their unsustainable patterns of consumption, production, and waste through public policies, regulations, the conscious and active participation of society, This includes promoting ethics that value human beings for what they are, not what they have.

17. It is necessary to guarantee the human right to water, education, health, communication, transportation, energy and sanitation. The provision of these services must be essentially public and based on efficient social management, not private business. The principal goal should be common wellbeing and not private profit, in order to ensure that these services reach the poorest and most marginalized sectors in an equitable manner.

18. States should ensure the right of their populations to proper nutrition by strengthening food sovereignty policies that promote: a) food production by farmers, indigenous peoples and small agricultural producers; b) access to land, water, seeds, credit and other resources for family and community producers; c) the development of social and public enterprises for food production, distribution, and sale that prevent hoarding and contribute to the stability of food prices in domestic markets, thus halting speculative practices and the destruction of local production; d) the right of citizens to define and to know and have the proper information about what they consume, the way their food is produced, and its origins; e) the right to healthy, varied and nutritious food; f) the right to consume what is necessary and prioritize local production; g) practices that contribute to reestablishing harmony with nature, avoiding greater desertification, deforestation, and destruction of biological diversity; h) the promotion of the use of indigenous seeds and traditional knowledge. Food production and commercialization must be socially regulated and cannot be left to free market forces.

19. Without water, there is no life. Humans and all living things have the right to water, but water also has rights. All States and peoples worldwide should work together in solidarity to ensure that loss of vegetation, deforestation, the pollution of the atmosphere and contamination are prevented from continuing to alter the hydrological cycle. These cause desertification, lack of food, temperature increase, sea level rise, migrations, acid rain, and physical-chemical changes that could provoke the loss of genetic and species diversity, damaging the health of ecosystems.

20. Forests are essential to the balance and integrity of planet Earth and a key element in the proper functioning of its ecosystems and the broader system of which we are a part. Thus we cannot consider them as simple providers of goods and services for human beings. The protection, preservation and recuperation of forests is necessary in order to reestablish the balance of the Earth system. Plantations that are planted for profit and promoted as carbon sinks and providers of environmental services are not forests. Forests are not plantations that can be reduced to their capacity to capture carbon and provide environmental services. Native forests and woodlands are essential for the water cycle, the atmosphere, biodiversity, the prevention of flooding, and the preservation of ecosystems. Forests are also home to indigenous peoples and communities. The preservation of forests should be pursued through integral and participatory management plans that should be financed with public funding from developed countries or specific taxes on the sectors with the greatest consumption.

21. It is essential to guarantee a real and effective reduction of greenhouse gases, particularly on the part of the developed countries historically responsible for climate change, in order to stabilize the increase in temperature to 1°C during this century. We must therefore strengthen the Kyoto Protocol with a second period of commitments by developed countries, instead of replacing it with a more flexible voluntary agreement. It is necessary to eliminate carbon market mechanisms and offsets so that real domestic reductions are made within the countries with said obligations. South Africa should not be another Cancun, delaying once again the central issue of substantive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

22. All forms of violence against women are incompatible with sustainable development. Violence done to women in militarily occupied territories, domestic or sexual violence, and discrimination in the workplace and in public spheres are problems we must solve. We must link the issue of the economic role of women to the protection of nature.

23. In order for sustainable development to exist, it is essential to guarantee the full application of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

24. Under the framework of common but differentiated responsibilities established in the 1992 Rio Declaration, the so-called developed countries must assume and pay their historical ecological debt for having contributed the most to the deterioration of the Earth system. The payment of this ecological debt by developed countries to developing countries and the sectors most affected among their own populations should replace to the greatest possible degree the ecological damage provoked. Developed countries should transfer financial resources from public sources and also the effective transfer of socially and ecologically appropriate technologies required by sovereign developing countries.

25. The enormous resources dedicated to defense, security and war budgets by developed countries should be reduced. These resources should instead be used to address the effects of climate change and the imbalance with nature. It is inexcusable that 1.5 trillion dollars in public funding are used on these budgets, while, to address the impacts of climate change in developing countries, they want to dedicate just 100 billion dollars from public and private funds as well as market sources.

26. A financial transaction tax should be created to help build a Sustainable Development Fund to attend to the sustainable development challenges faced by developing countries. This financing mechanism should generate new, stable and additional resources for developing countries. A tax of 0.05% applied on a global level has the potential to capture $661 billion per year according to ECLAC.[1] The mechanism of the international financial transaction tax can be built in a voluntary and gradual manner with the participation of those developed and developing countries that wish to participate.

27. The Rio+20 Conference should not create market mechanisms with regard to nature, biodiversity and the so called environmental services: a) The logic of the market and monetary valuation applied to environmental services and biodiversity will generate greater inequality in the distribution of those resources, which are essential for humanity and Mother Earth; b) The establishment of these market mechanisms will deepen the imbalance with nature because they are driven by the search for maximum profits and not harmony with nature; c) It will affect the sovereignty of our States and peoples by generating new forms of property rights over the functions of nature that will be in the hands of investors. These mechanisms are uncertain, volatile and the source of financial speculation given that the bulk of the money they mobilize will remain in the hands of intermediary actors.

28. Sustainable development requires a new international financial architecture to replace the World Bank and the IMF with entities that are democratic and transparent, that respect national priorities and national independence in the application of development strategies. These new institutions should have a majority representation by developing countries and should act according to the principles of solidarity and cooperation, rather than commercialization and privatization.

29. It is essential to create an effective Technology Transfer Mechanism that stems from the demand and needs of the countries of the South for technologies that are socially, culturally, and environmentally appropriate. Said mechanism should not be a “show room” for the sale of technologies by rich countries. In order to promote the exchange of scientific and technical knowledge, it is essential to remove intellectual property barriers so that there might exist a true transfer of environmentally friendly technologies from developed countries to developing countries.

30. Intellectual property rights over genes, microorganisms and other forms of life are a threat to food sovereignty, biodiversity, access to medicine and other elements that are essential for the survival of low-income populations. All forms of intellectual property over life should be abolished.

31. Gross Domestic Product is not an adequate means of measuring the development and wellbeing of a society. Thus it is necessary to create indicators for measuring the environmental destruction caused by certain economic activities in order to advance toward sustainable development in harmony with nature, integrating social and environmental aspects that are not aimed at the commercialization of nature and its functions.

32. Respect for the sovereignty of States is essential in the management and protection of nature under the framework of cooperation among States.

33. No identical solutions exist for all peoples. Human beings are diverse. Our peoples have their own unique cultures and identities. To destroy a culture is to threaten the identity of an entire people. Capitalism attempts to homogenize us all to convert us into consumers. There has not been, nor will there ever be, a single model for life that can save the world. We live and act in a pluralistic world, and a pluralistic world should respect diversity, which is itself synonymous with life. Respect for peaceful and harmonious complementarity among the diverse cultures and economies, without exploitation or discrimination against any single one, is essential for saving the planet, humanity, and life.

34. Peace is essential for sustainable development. There is no worse aggression against humanity and Mother Earth than war and violence. War destroys life, and it has a particularly strong impact on the poorest and most vulnerable. Nobody and nothing is safe from war. Those that fight suffer, as do those that are forced to go without bread in order to feed the war. Wars squander life and natural resources.

35. An International Tribunal of Environmental and Climate Justice must be established to judge and sanction crimes against nature that transcend national borders, violating the rights of nature and affecting humanity.

36. To achieve sustainable development, it is necessary to promote public associations, public-public associations among actors in different States, public-social associations among different social sectors, and public-private associations.

37. The problems affecting humanity and nature require the exercise of global democracy through the development of mechanisms of consultation and decision-making such as referendums, plebiscites, or popular consultations so that the citizens of the world as a whole may speak.

38. Sustainable development is incompatible with all forms of imperialism and neocolonialism. In order to stop imperialism and neocolonialism, it is essential to end the imposition of conditionalities, military interventions, coups and blackmail.

39. The collective global response that is needed to confront the crisis we face requires structural changes. We must change the system – not the climate or the Earth system. In the hands of capitalism, everything is converted into merchandise: water, earth genomes, ancestral cultures, justice, ethics and life. It is essential to develop a pluralistic system based on the culture of life and harmony among human beings and with nature; a system that promotes sustainable development in the framework of solidarity, complementarity, equity, social and economic justice, social participation, respect for diversity, and peace.

IV. THE GREEN ECONOMY AND ITS DANGEROUS AND FALSE SOLUTIONS

40. At a global scale, the supposed objective of the Green Economy of disassociating economic growth from environmental deterioration is not viable. Those that promote the Green Economy promote a three-dimensional capitalism that includes physical capital, human capital, and natural capital (rivers, wetlands, forests, coral reefs, biological diversity and other elements). For the Green Economy, the food crisis, the climate crisis and the energy crisis share a common characteristic: the failed allocation of capital. As a result, they try to treat nature as capital – “natural capital.”

41. The Green Economy considers it essential to put a price on the free services that plants, animals and ecosystems offer to humanity in the struggle for the conservation of biodiversity, water purification, pollination of plants, the protection of coral reefs and regulation of the climate. For the Green Economy, it is necessary to identify the specific functions of ecosystems and biodiversity and assign them a monetary value, evaluate their current status, set a limit after which they will cease to provide services, and concretize in economic terms the cost of their conservation in order to develop a market for each particular environmental service. For the Green Economy, the instruments of the market are powerful tools for managing the “economic invisibility of nature.”

42. One of the examples most cited by the Green Economy is the initiative known as REDD (Reducing Emissions through Deforestation and Forest Degradation), which consists of isolating and measuring the capacity of the forest to capture and store carbon dioxide in order to issue certificates for greenhouse gas emissions reductions that can be commercialized and acquired by companies in developed countries that cannot meet their mitigation commitments. In this way, the developing countries will end up financing the developed countries.

43. It is wrong to attempt to fragment nature into “environmental services” with a monetary value for market exchange. We should not put a price on the capacity of forests to act as carbon sinks, nor promote their commercialization as does REDD. The market for carbon credits based on forests will lead to: a) noncompliance with effective emission reduction commitments by developed countries; b) the bulk of resources being appropriated by intermediaries and financial entities and rarely benefitting countries, indigenous peoples and forests themselves; c) the generation of speculative bubbles based on the sale and purchase of said certificates; and d) the establishment of new property rights over the capacity of forests to capture carbon dioxide, which will clash with the sovereign rights of States and the indigenous peoples that live in forests. The promotion of market mechanisms based on the economic needs of developing countries is a new form of neocolonialism.

44. The postulates promoted under the Green Economy are wrong. The current environmental and climate crisis is not a simple market failure. The solution is not to put a price on nature. Nature is not a form of capital. It is wrong to say that we only value that which has a price, an owner, and brings profits. The market mechanisms that permit exchange among human beings and nations have proven incapable of contributing to an equitable distribution of wealth. The Green Economy should not distort the fundamental principles of sustainable development.

45. Not all that glitters is gold. Not all that is labeled “green” is environmentally friendly. We must use the precautionary principle and deeply analyze the different “green” alternatives that are presented before proceeding with their experimentation and implementation.

46. Nature cannot be subject to manipulation by new technologies without consequences in the future. History shows us that many dangerous technologies have been released in the market before their environmental or health impacts are known, or before their social and economic impacts on poor people and developing countries are understood. This is currently the case with genetically modified organisms, agrochemicals, biofuels, nanotechnology, and synthetic biology. These technologies should be avoided.

47. Geoengineering and all forms of artificial manipulation of the climate should be prohibited, for they bring the enormous risk of further destabilizing the climate, biodiversity and nature.

48. It is necessary to create public and multilateral mechanisms within the United Nations to evaluate in an independent manner and without conflict of interest the potential environmental, health, social, and economic impacts of new technologies before they are spread. This mechanism must involve transparency and social participation by potentially affected groups.

49. “Green” capitalism will bring about natural resource grabbing, displacing humanity and nature from the essential elements needed for their survival. The drive for profit, instead of reestablishing harmony within the system, will provoke even greater imbalances, concentrations of wealth, and speculative processes.

V. INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR SUSTINABLE DEVELOPMENT

50. The institutional architecture of the United Nations for sustainable development should establish a structure to promote balanced and equal treatment of the three pillars: the economic, social, and environmental. This institutional architecture should articulate and coordinate the different authorities involved in order to avoid overlapping efforts and achieve effective coordination.

51. The Economic Pillar should determine the sustainable development agendas of economic and commercial organizations such as the WTO, the World Bank and IMF. Without an effective integration among these entities, the institutional framework will be unable to define the economic policies necessary to achieve sustainable development while respecting national priorities and national independence and with transparent and socially acceptable management.

52. The Social Pillar should coordinate entities such as ILO, WHO, UNESCO, UN-Women, the Indigenous Permanent Forum and others in order to improve their actions and impacts in the struggle for the eradication of poverty.

53. The Environmental Pillar should stem from a better coordination and implementation of the different Conventions (UNFCCC, UNCCD, CBD) and the incorporation of all environmental issues including water.

54. The coordination of these three pillars should be under the auspices of a Council for Sustainable Development that is created on the basis of what is now the Commission on Sustainable Development. It should be at the level of a Council that would function as a subsidiary body of the General Assembly, guaranteeing a fundamental role for States, coordinating with the Economic and Social Council, and with regular functioning to follow up on and implement the goals and mechanisms agreed and resolutions adopted.

55. Developing countries should have a majority representation in said Council, and its functioning should be democratic and transparent.

56. The Council for Sustainable Development should include mechanisms for the participation of civil society and non-governmental organizations especially organizations representing workers, indigenous peoples, farmers, small agricultural producers and fishermen, women, youth and consumers. The private sector cannot have the same amount of influence as the social sectors, given that, by definition, its goal is to create profit rather than social wellbeing. The linking of the Sustainable Development Council with the different social actors should occur through a Consultative Group.

[1] http://www.eclac.org/cgi-bin/getProd.asp?xml=/prensa/noticias/comunicados/3/44323/P44323.xml&xsl=/prensa/tpl/p6f.xsl&base=/tpl/top-bottom.xsl

Climate Change: Should the rich continue polluting? - Pablo Solon, former UNFCCC negotiator and UN ambassador to Bolivia

noreply@blogger.com (Bolivia Rising) — Sun, 11 Dec 2011 05:29:00 +0000

Khadija Sharife and Vadim Nikitin

Pablo Solon, former UNFCCC negotiator and UN ambassador to Bolivia, tells The Africa Report that the biggest mistake with the Kyoto Protocol is to allow multinationals to continue polluting in a technically legal manner. "Should the rich be allowed to keep polluting?" Solon asks.

The Africa Report: What is the issue at stake here?

Solon:Here, we have a negotiation at two levels – one is this negotiation (pointing to the ICC) and the other is between the rich sector and the poor sector. It's a pity that it is not being highlighted here. There is the negotiation between nations too - that the countries responsible for 80 percent of historical emissions, US, Europe, Japan, are going to lose only 13-17 percent of emissions from the year 1990. So that is absolutely unacceptable because if they do that then the temperature will increase by more than 4 degrees Celsius. No matter what you do here ... if big emitters don't do what they must do the results will be bad.

This is the issue here – we think that at the UN level – that is, negotiation between nations, this unfair distribution of atmospheric space should end. At the national level, many countries have to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), and do it in a way that favours the poorest part of the population. You have countries where people don't have electricity... and areas that consume a lot of energy. So there is a problem between nations and the distribution of resources, in our countries, between our populations. How is development going to take shape and how it will benefit the majority – that is the question.

How should civil society approach COP17? What is the right approach – boycott it? Support it? What should our relationship be?

Well, if there is no pressure from civil society, there won't be the possibility to have any kind of agreement that is in some way possible to make a difference. If you want to change it, there has to be a huge movement developed outside of the main structures... The problem with climate change is that you cannot reach an agreement that stabilises the climate unless states are in agreement, and ratify that agreement.

Should the emissions from multinationals that export pollution to developing countries be included as part of the 'home' countries rather than included as developing country emissions?

Yes, absolutely, because we see that some countries, very rich countries, are saying that yes, we have reduced (our GHG), but what they have done is exported their industries and production to other developing countries, and so, in reality, they are not reducing the production of pollution, but shifting the location of it.

Why did the Kyoto Protocol create flexibility mechanisms that would allow for multinationals to continue emissions in a technically legal manner?

That is the biggest mistake of the Kyoto Protocol – because it allows rich countries that don't reduce their GHG emissions to buy polluting permits from developing countries. Our proposal – as part of the People's Agreement built in Bolivia, all emissions reductions should be accounted nationally, inside your own borders, because it is not correct to say I'm going to reduce 40 percent, but in reality you're going to buy it, but only because you have money. Should the rich be allowed to keep polluting?

But if you outsource production, doesn't that increase their industrial development and lead to an increase in investment in those countries, aren't there any positive outcomes of carbon trading?

In carbon trading? No - not at all.... Do we want to have an outcome of neutralisation in developing countries – is that positive? Yes. But another thing is to say that we are going to support this initiative but in exchange we are going to pollute the world. That is not positive at all. Many of those processes of neutralisation will happen anyway - because cheaper labour and raw material is cheaper anyway. So it is not because they want to help you neutralise. Another thing is we need to create jobs and development in the developing world but there has to be another way. Because otherwise we are going to follow the same model and we know that is unsustainable. The need for neutralisation is real but it doesn't have to follow that pathway.

Is the financialisation of ecosystems and resources potentially beneficial?

We are against financialised instruments like REDD – what it will bring. This is rubbish, a process of commodification, of privatization, ie: I'm not selling you the tree, but (rather the) capacity of that tree to absorb C02. So there will be a corporation in another country who owns the right to the tree, in terms of its capacity to absorb C02. It's a new profit of privatisation. Their argument is that we are in crisis because we have not treated nature as a capital. If we treat nature as a capital, then we can let the forces of the market bring some good distribution of resources. But that is not going to happen. It hasn't happened with the people, it won't happen with the environment.

To what extent is the issue of climate crisis a question of power and politics? Should democracy be participatory rather than representative so climate policies can include systemic change of macroeconomic policies causing the crisis?

Precisely, that is why one of the main questions that came out of the climate change conference at Cochabamba... a referendum that would give people their power back. If we keep waiting for representative democracy, in reality, this represents more the interests of corporations, than people.

Republished from The Africa Report

CELAC is an instrument of liberation, says Evo Morales

noreply@blogger.com (Bolivia Rising) — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 23:22:00 +0000

Prensa Latina

Bolivian President, Evo Morales, said that the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) will be an instrument that will allow them to be free politically and economically from imperialism.

In an interview with the multinational Telesur, published today by the state-run daily, Cambio, Morales affirmed that he has the hope that the new block of countries will speed the process of decolonization.

"There is one position, as in being free of imperialist domination. This is a profound theme. After 500 years of indigenous resistance, and 200 years of independence, finally we came together to liberate us," he remarked.

Morales assured that in the new regional organization, without the presence of the United States, it will be possible to discuss how to tackle the energy, food and economic crises that devastate the countries of the region.

He also urged the countries that had been annexed to join the decolonization process being undertaken by some nations of the blazing CELAC.

CELAC is made up of 33 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean without the presence of the United States or Canada.

Morales explained that this alliance will further strengthen the integration process carried out in South America since the creation of the Andean Community of Nations (CAN). The first step that CELAC should take is to conform their General Secretariat, then coordinate the work of the ministries in all member states to discuss issues of common interest.

In this respect, he noted that this work must be undertaken by the chancelleries to touch economic and productive issues, among others.

He stressed that the region has all the necessary wealth to consolidate itself as a power.

Morales also opined that the policy of CELAC is universal health and education, since it is a human right, not a private business.

Former chief negotiator for climate change and UN Ambassador of the Plurinational State of Bolivia Pablo Solon on COP17: The Great Escape III

noreply@blogger.com (Bolivia Rising) — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 22:21:00 +0000

Pablo Solon (*)

After 9 days of negotiations there is no doubt that we saw this movie before. It is the third remake of Copenhagen and Cancun. Same actors. Same script. The documents are produced outside the formal negotiating scenario . In private meetings, dinners which the 193 member states do not attend. The result of these meetings is known only on the last day. In the case of Copenhagen it was at two in the morning after the event should have already ended. In Cancun, the draft decision just appeared at 5 p.m. on the last day and was not opened for negotiation, not even to correct a comma. Bolivia stood firm on both occasions. The reason: the very low emission reduction commitments of industrialized countries that would lead to an increase in average global temperatures of more than 4° Celsius. In Cancun, Bolivia stood alone. I could not do otherwise. How could we accept the same document that was rejected in Copenhagen, knowing that 350,000 people die each year due to natural disasters caused by climate change? To remain silent is to be complicit in genocide and ecocide. To accept a disastrous document in order not to be left alone is cowardly diplomacy. Even more so when one trumpets the “people’s diplomacy” and has pledged to defend the “People’s Agreement” of the World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth held in Bolivia last year.

Durban will be worse than Copenhagen and Cancun. Two days before the close of the meetings, the true text that is being negotiated is not yet known. Everyone knows that the actual 131-page document is just a compilation of proposals that were already on the table in Panama two months ago. The formal negotiations have barely advanced. The real document will appear toward the end of COP17.

But more importantly, the substance of the negotiations remains unchanged from Copenhagen. The emission reduction pledges by developed countries are still 13% to 17% based on 1990 levels. Everyone knows that this is a catastrophe. But instead of becoming outraged, they attempt to sweeten the poison. The wrapper of this package will be the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol and a mandate for a new binding agreement. The substance of the package will be the same as in Copenhagen and Cancun: do virtually nothing during this decade in terms of reducing emissions, and get a mandate to negotiate an agreement that will be even weaker than the Kyoto Protocol and that will replace it in 2020. “The Great Escape III” is the name of this movie, and it tells the story of how the governments of rich countries along with transnational corporations are looking to escape their responsibility to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Instead of becoming stronger, the fight against climate change is becoming more soft and flexible, with voluntary commitments to reduce emissions. The question is, who will step up this time to denounce the fraud to the end? Or could it be that this time, everyone will accept the remake of Copenhagen and Cancun?

The truth is that beyond the setting and the last scene, the end of this film will be the same as in Copenhagen and Cancun: humanity and mother earth will be the victims of a rise in temperature not seen in 800,000 years.

(*) Pablo Solon is an international analyst and social activist. He was chief negotiator for climate change and United Nations Ambassador of the Plurinational State of Bolivia (2009-June 2011). http://pablosolon.wordpress.com/

Republished from PWCCC

Bolivia at Durban COP 17 climate summit: ‘Forests are not for carbon stocks’

noreply@blogger.com (Bolivia Rising) — Sat, 03 Dec 2011 06:28:00 +0000

Yusuf Omar

Bolivia came out swinging at its first press conference of the climate change conference yesterday, criticising the Green Climate Fund – which is meant to help developing countries adapt to climate change – and opposing the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation scheme (Redd).

“Bolivia is showing strongly against the mechanism of Redd. The role of the forest is not for carbon stocks,” said the head of the Bolivian delegation, Rene Orellana.

Redd is a set of steps designed to use financial incentives to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases from deforestation and forest degradation. The forest produces carbon credits and therefore becomes an emissions offsetting scheme.

While most countries have been hesitant to overtly state their positions at such an early stage in the negotiations, the Bolivian delegation took a strong stance against the mainstream consensus of the talks thus far.

“As people who live in the forest, we are not carbon stocks. We disagree with Redd because we oppose the commoditisation of the forest,” said Orellana. Fifty percentt of Bolivia is blanketed in forest, 40 percent of which is in lowlands near the Amazon.

“It’s a complex and dangerous situation to see forests as carbon stocks. The forest provides a role as food security, a water source and biodiversity for our indigenous population. Redd reduces the function of the forest to just one, carbon stocks,” he said. “We have an alternative proposal, not based on market solutions.”

The joint mitigation and adaptation plan mechanism proposal, called “sustainable forest life”, outlines three main principles: to find different sources of finance for climate change mitigation and adaptation (other than carbon credits); the recognition of multiple forest functions such as environment, social, economic and cultural functions; and methodologies for integrated forest management.

“We have put the proposal on the table, but no attention is being paid. We are not saying the system should be the same in Bolivia and South Africa, although we share many of the same environmental issues. Most of the countries are supporting Redd,” said Orellana.

He also went on to criticise some of the details of the proposed Green Climate Fund. “We do not agree with having results-based payments,” said Orellana.

Countries agreed to form the Green Climate Fund during climate change talks in Cancun, Mexico, and a transitional committee was formed.

While Bolivia is somewhat politically unstable, with recent student riots in November, its environmental stand is firm.

In Cancun, Bolivia was the irritating thorn in the side of the US and the EU.

This year, the South American country also passed the world’s first laws granting all nature equal rights to humans. “We must have respect for the rights of Mother Earth,” said Orellana.

The Law of Mother Earth defines the country’s rich mineral deposits as “blessings”. The 11 rights for nature include the right to life and to exist; the right to continue vital cycles and processes free from human alteration; the right to pure water and clean air; the right to balance; the right not to be polluted; and the right not to have cellular structure modified or genetically altered.

Republished from the Mercury

ALBA nations prepare to fight for humanity at Durban climate summit

noreply@blogger.com (Bolivia Rising) — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 00:50:00 +0000

Bolivarian alliance calls for extending and strengthening the Kyoto Protocol and climate adaptation aid to poor countries, and opposes the commodification of forests under REDD

Federico Fuentes, November 23, 2011

Representatives from the Latin American and Caribbean governments that comprise the Bolivarian Alliance of the Peoples of Our Americas (ALBA) met in Bolivia on November 17-18 to coordinate their battle plan ahead of the international climate change summit scheduled to start in Durban later this month.

ALBA – which includes Antigua and Barbuda, Bolivia, Cuba, Dominica, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Venezuela – was at the forefront of scuttling attempts at the 2009 Copenhagen summit by rich nations to impose their anti-environmental plans that would set the world on a course towards catastrophic climate change.

This year’s summit will focus on attempts to reach agreement on the commitments for the second period of the Kyoto Protocol, set to begin in 2013.

Rejecting the idea of “voluntary emissions reductions” being proposed by rich nations, which would destroy the Kyoto Protocol and see catastrophic global temperatures rises of more than 5°C, ALBA is proposing the “continuation, preservation and strengthening of the Kyoto Protocol” as the only legally binding international framework in place today.

The conclusions reached at Durban, reads the summit’s final declaration, must be “ambitious, balanced and based on scientific recommendations and evidence, on equity and the rule of law.”

This would require compliance with the principles of the United Nations (UN) convention on climate change, “particularly, the principles of equality and of common but differentiated responsibilities.” Developed nations, the primarily culprits for the current climate crisis, must be the ones to take on the greatest share of the burden in order to reverse current trends.

According to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, this would require, as a minimum, rich nations implementing carbon emissions reductions of 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020 and 80-95% below 1990 levels by 2050 if temperature rises are to be keep at 2°C.

At the 10th ALBA Summit, held in Ecuador in June 2010, ALBA affirmed its position in favour of limiting "the increase in the global average temperature to a level far below 1.5°C, with an ideal stabilisation at 1°C."

To help underdeveloped countries deal with the consequences of climate change, Bolivia raised a proposal, adopted at the ALBA meeting, for a tax to be imposed on international financial transactions. The estimated $400 billion that this would raise annually, would go towards funding technological research and concrete actions that help reduce carbon emissions.

The ALBA bloc also stated that it would fight to ensure that rich nations comply with the agreement reached at the 2010 Cancun summit whereby they would contribute $100 billion a year towards a fund to help underdeveloped countries mitigate and adapt to the challenges of climate change. To date, contributions for 2011 have fallen far short of this target.

ALBA will also demand that rich countries contribute the equivalent of at least 1.5% of their gross domestic product to the Official Development Assistance to help poorer nations.

The ALBA bloc also agreed to Bolivia’s proposal to reject the idea of seeing forests as simply carbon-offsets to be traded on the carbon market, as it is with the currently promoted policy of REDD. In its place, ALBA will advocate a mechanism denominated “sustainable life of forest” in which an integral vision takes into account the role forest play not only in absorbing carbon but also in regards to food production, water, biodiversity, and land.

Following on from the successful October meeting held in Panama between the ALBA bloc, the African Union, and the Group of Least Developed Countries, which combined represent around 100 countries, ALBA pledged to continue strengthening this alliance of underdeveloped countries.

According to Claudia Salerno, who headed the Venezuelan delegation at the October summit, the three blocs resolved to work together to ensure that “all developed countries… close the gap on two issues in Durban: the mitigation gap by reducing emissions under the Kyoto Protocol, and the gap on financing by offering long-term financial support [to underdeveloped countries] for emissions reductions beginning in 2013.”

Tosi Mpanu Mpanu, the Chair of the African Group of Negotiators for Climate Change, stated that while underdeveloped nations “”are doing our part” what is required is for developed countries “to move forward on the issue of financing to combat climate change and reduce emissions… in order to have a successful meeting in Durban.”

Republished from Climate and Capitalism

Bolivia: Solidarity activists need to support process

noreply@blogger.com (Bolivia Rising) — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 07:44:00 +0000

Federico Fuentes

The recent march in Bolivia by some indigenous organisations against the government’s proposed highway through the Isiboro Secure National Park and Indigenous Territory (TIPNIS) has raised much debate among international solidarity activists.

Such debates have occurred since the election of Bolivia's first indigenous president, Evo Morales, in 2005 on the back of mass uprisings.

Overwhelmingly, solidarity activists uncritically supported the anti-highway march. Many argued that only social movements — not governments — can guarantee the success of the process of change.

However, such a viewpoint is not only simplistic; it can leave solidarity activists on the wrong side.

Kevin Young’s October 1 piece on Znet, “Bolivia Dilemmas: Turmoil, Transformation, and Solidarity”, tries to grapple with this issue by saying that “our first priority [as solidarity activists] must be to stop our governments, corporations and banks from seeking to control Bolivia’s destiny”.

Yet, as was the case with most articles written by solidarity activists, Young downplays the role of United States imperialism and argues the government was disingenuous in linking the protesters to it.

Others went further, denying any connection between the protesters and US imperialism.

The Confederation of Indigenous Peoples of the Bolivian East (CIDOB), the main organisation behind the march, has no such qualms. It boasted on its website that it received training programs from the US government aid agency USAID.

On the site, CIDOB president Adolfo Chavez, thanks the “information and training acquired via different programs financed by external collaborators, in this case USAID”.

Ignoring or denying clear evidence of US funding to such organisations is problematic. Attacking the Bolivian government for exposing this, as some did, disarms solidarity activists in their fight against imperialist intervention.

But biggest failure of the solidarity movement has been its silence on US and corporate responsibility for the conflict.

The TIPNIS dispute was not some romanticised, Avatar-like battle between indigenous defenders of Mother Earth and a money-hungry government intent on destroying the environment.

Underpinning the conflict was the difficult question of how Bolivia can overcome centuries of colonialism and underdevelopment to provide its people with access to basic services while trying to respect the environment. The main culprits are not Bolivian; they are imperialist governments and their corporations.

We must demand they pay their ecological debt and transfer the necessary technology for sustainable development to countries such as Bolivia (demands that almost no solidarity activists raised). Until this occurs, activists in rich nations have no right to tell Bolivians what they can and cannot do to satisfy the basic needs of their people.

Otherwise, telling Bolivian people that they have no right to a highway or to extract gas to fund social programs (as some NGOs demanded), means telling Bolivians they have no right to develop their economy or fight poverty.

Imperialism aims to keep Third World nations subordinate to the interests of rich nations. This is one reason foreign NGOs and USAID are trying to undermine the Morales government's leading international role in opposing the grossly anti-environmental policies, such as Reduce Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD).

REDD uses poor nations for carbon offsets so corporations in rich countries can continue polluting. Support for REDD was one of the demands of the protest march.

Young says “our solidarity should be with grassroots revolutionaries, anti-imperialists and defenders of human rights, not with governments or parties”.

But, as the TIPNIS case shows, when governments are trying to grapple with lifting their country out of underdevelopment, the demands of social movements with competing sectoral interests may clash.

In fact, some of the most strident supporters of the highway were also the very same social movements that solidarity activists have supported in their struggles against neoliberal governments during the last decade.

In such scenarios, you can only choose between supporting some social movement demands by dismissing legitimate demands of others, as many did with the TIPNIS case.

Lasting change can only come about when social movements begin to take power into their own hands when social movements become governments.

It is this objective that Bolivia's social movements set. They forged their own political instrument through struggle ― commonly known as the Movement Towards Socialism ― and won a government they see as their own.

Having gone from a position of “struggle from below” to taking government from the traditional elites as an instrument to achieve their goal of state power, these social movements have begun winning control over natural resources and enacted a new constitution.

Converting the constitution’s ideals into a new state power remains a task for the Bolivian revolution.

But its success depends on the ability of “grassroots revolutionaries, anti-imperialists and defenders of human rights” ― operating within and without the existing state ― to struggle in a united way.

Our solidarity must be based on the existing revolutionary struggle in Bolivia, not a romanticised one we would prefer.

A permanent state of protests may be attractive for solidarity activists, but ultimately can only translate into a permanent state of demoralisation unless social movements can go beyond opposing capitalist governments and create their own state power.

Refusing to support the struggles as they exist illustrates a lack of confidence in the Bolivian masses to determine their own destiny. It also displays an arrogance on the part of those who, having failed to hold back imperialist governments at home, believe they know better than the Bolivians how to develop their process of change.

Mistakes are made in any struggle. But such mistakes should not be used to try and pit one side against another. We should have confidence that these internal conflicts can be resolved by the social movements themselves.

Republished from Green Left Weekly

Bolivia: Rumble over jungle far from over

noreply@blogger.com (Bolivia Rising) — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 01:21:00 +0000

Federico Fuentes

Despite the government reaching an agreement with indigenous protesters on all 16 demands raised on their 10-week march onto the capital, La Paz, the underlying differences are far from resolved.

On October 24, Bolivia’s Plurinational Legislative Assembly approved a new law banning the building of any highway through the Isiboro Secure National Park and Indigenous Territory (TIPNIS).

Many groups supported the highway, which would have connected the departments of Beni and Cochabamba, and provide poor rural communities with greater access to markets and basic services.

However, it was opposed by 20 of the 64 indigenous communities in TIPNIS. It became the central rallying point of the march led by the Confederation of Indigenous Peoples of the Bolivian East (CIDOB).

The march gained much sympathy, particularly among urban middle class sectors, after police meted out brutal repression against protesters on September 24.

Bolivian President Evo Morales immediately denied giving any orders to repress the protest. Apologising for the terrible event, Morales ordered a full investigation into the police attack.

Nevertheless, some important mobilisations in solidarity with the marchers were held in the days afterwards.

In response, government supporters took to the streets on October 12. Hundreds of thousands of indigenous peoples, campesinos (peasants), miners and neighbourhood activists from El Alto flooded the capital.

Having reached La Paz on October 19, march leaders sat down with Morales and government ministers for two days to reach agreement on their demands.

These demands ranged from opposition to the highway to land reform and the right of indigenous peoples to receive funds in return for converting forests within their traditional lands into carbon offsets.

It did not take long for the dispute to reignite, this time over the word “untouchable”, which was inserted into the TIPNIS law at the request of march leaders.

According to the government, the term “untouchable” required the immediate expulsion of all logging and tourism companies operating within TIPNIS, in some cases illegally.

However, march leaders who opposed the highway defended the industrial-scale logging within TIPNIS.

This includes two logging companies who operate more than 70,000 hectares within the national park and have signed 20 year contracts with local communities.

The government denounced the presence of a tourist resort within TIPNIS, equipped with two private airstrips to fly foreigners willing to pay US$7600 to visit the park.

Of this money, only $200 remains with local communities that have signed the contract with the foreign company.

Rather than defending some kind of romanticised “communitarianism”, much of the motivation behind the march was an attempt by community leaders to defend their control over natural resources as a means to access wealth.

The same is true of many of those groups that have demanded the law be overturned and the highway go ahead. Campesinos and coca growers see the highway as an opportunity to gain access to land for cultivation.

These differences underpin the divergent views regarding the new land law being proposed by campesino groups, but opposed by groups such as CIDOB.

The CIDOB advocates large tracts of land be handed over to indigenous communities as protected areas. Campesino groups are demanding more land be distributed to campesino families.

These differences have led to a split in the Unity Pact, which united the five main campesino and indigenous organisations despite longstanding differences.

This is perhaps the most important divisipn to have opened up within the Morales government’s support base. But is far from being the only one.

The TIPNIS march served as a pretext for opposition parties based among the urban middle classes to break down government support in these sectors.

On October 16, Bolivians took part in a historic vote to elect judges to the Constitutional Tribunal, the Agro-environmental Tribunal and Magistrates Council.

The corporate media used exit poll figures to announce that most had nullified their votes as opposition parties had called for. But the final result showed a different picture.

As votes from rural areas began to be counted, the supposed crushing victory for null votes was whittled away. The final results showed valid and null votes tying at 42%.

The opposition tried to turn the vote into a referendum on Morales.

Despite attempts to portray the null vote as a “progressive” protest vote against Morales, the results clearly showed that opposition to the election of judges was strongest in the right-wing controlled departments of the east and in the urban middle and upper class sectors.

In rural and poor urban areas, such as El Alto, valid votes overwhelming won out.

The null votes came from the same middle class sectors that came out onto the streets of La Paz in support of the indigenous march, and who spat out racist epitaphs against Morales and indigenous government supporters when they marched through the capital.

Meanwhile, territorial conflicts between various departments and local councils scrambling for resources and access to central government funding continue to provide headaches for the government.

Morales called a national summit for December to bring together the country’s social movements to collectively come up with a new “national agenda”.

The likelihood, however, of achieving consensus for a national development plan among competing social organisations, all with their own sectoral interests and who have seen that it is possible to twist the government’s arm by protesting, will no doubt be a difficult task.

Republished from Green Left Weekly

Bolivia-USA: Morbid relations beyond diplomacy

noreply@blogger.com (Bolivia Rising) — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 02:51:00 +0000

Ontober 28, 2011

Juan Carlos Zambrana Marchetti

It’s no secret that diplomatic relations between a poor country and a hegemonic world power are frequently a montage. They are a pantomime written and directed by the stronger, showing it as a hero, and the weaker as a victim rescued from poverty, chaos, or ungovernability. Above all, it’s a theatrical piece meant to hide a scandalous degree of interventionism and domination.

This was the case in the relations between Bolivia and the United States ever since the Rockefeller empire seized the oil industry and, in the 1930s, instigated the war against Paraguay, later selling to the latter the oil that it stole from Bolivia. Bolivia lost sixty-thousand men in that war, and fell into starvation, but from that pain was born the patriotic sentiment in favor of defending national dignity and natural resources.

Thus were born the revolutionary governments, and the first of them nationalized John Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company for fraud against the state. That set off an interminable cold war waged by the United States against Bolivia, which drove the small Andean country into a vicious cycle of fraudulent elections and dictatorships in order to impose puppet governments with orders to change the laws so as to impose anew the looting; and, later, the periods of merciless exploitation of the Bolivian people, of popular protests against the abuse, and of massacres in order to repress them.

That period of diplomatic relations of submission to the United States was legalized the year 1951, with the establishment of a framework agreement of relations between a donor country that provided “aid” and a petitioner and receiver of that aid, which was always conditioned upon an absolute subordination to Washington’s policies. Despite its disastrous results and humiliating nature, that type of relations was represented through the pantomime of “good diplomatic relations.”

The period of Evo Morales, on the contrary, is the period of decolonization of the form of government, initiated with the re-founding of the country, a new constitution that impedes the looting, and the implementation of a process of profound change toward a more just society. In it, the state assumes fully its social responsibility, something from which Washington’s neoliberalism exempts the governments that it controls. It’s the era, therefore, of the inevitable confrontation with the hegemonic policy of the United States, which led to the expulsion of DEA and of ambassador Philip Goldberg. From then on, the State Department continued covertly its aggressive low-intensity war unleashed against Morales’ government.

Declassified documents obtained by renowned American investigator Jeremy Bigwood (www.boliviamatters.wordpress.com) revealed that from the beginning of the 1990s, long before Evo became president, the United States already identified him as a “danger to its plans for the hemisphere”, and put into effect a campaign against him that implied an “alarming interventionism” in the internal affairs of Bolivia. Documents from 2001, 2002, 2004 and 2006 revealed that the U.S.A. intervened not only openly, through its embassy, calling for a firm hand from the presidencies that it controlled, such as that of Tuto Quiroga, but also covertly, through programs financed by USAID to make contact with the indigenous people of the TIPNIS with the goal of making use of the conflict that they had with the coca growers of the Chapare due to an illegal settlement of those territories.

In this way, it exacerbated rivalry among sectors and articulated a coalition of forces opposed to Morales that included the power groups of Santa Cruz that came together in the CAINCO. The United States financed programs with political goals of that entrepreneurial organization through another of its agencies, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), by means of which it had established with CAINCO a historical political alliance. Finally, it directed the use of the media to systematically discredit Morales, promote discontent, and thus manufacture an adverse public opinion.

These cultivated anti-Evo forces finally converged on Saturday, October 22, 2011 in Plaza Murillo, historic setting of so many lynchings of presidents and the overthrow of popular governments. it was the march on behalf of the indigenous peoples of the TIPNIS demanding to negotiate directly with the President. It was time to clench the teeth, because nobody in Bolivia forgets the river of blood that has flowed in the past in similar circumstances. It was time for the perhaps tragic outcome awaited by the sectors opposed to Morales, stuck like leeches to the cause that they managed to manipulate. When the police denied entry to Plaza Murillo to all of them, the infiltrators in the March began to shout “Villarroel”, “Villarroel”, alluding to the hanging of the former president. Sunday was an important day, which will be studied for a long time at universities, because what happened then was as unexpected as it was surprising.

“We’re screwed,” said on Monday afternoon a bewildered member of the opposition, scratching his head while talking with an Indian, trying to understand in depth what they had done. His concern was understandable. Morales had not only survived the attempt to destabilize his government, but also dissolved in 48 hours the subversive plot, which, according to the aforementioned evidence, the United States had been organizing since the beginning of the 1990s. Evo granted the indigenous peoples of the TIPNIS literally everything they asked for. The indigenous, on the other hand, recognized that several of the points alluding to problems outside the TIPNIS were not their petitions, but those of their “affiliates”, which they had included in the original 16-point petition, in return for the support they received for the march.

Negotiations almost broke down when the Indians saw in writing what they had requested, and decided to back off. The protection of the natural reserve was so absolute that it meant the postponement of any aspiration of integration for its inhabitants. The territory was being declared indivisible, un-attachable, imprescriptible, inalienable, and irreversible, but, above all, untouchable. It was a victory for foreign “environmental” groups, financed from the United States and other developed countries that become rich by polluting the atmosphere of the planet with their deregulated industries; and that now, because the TIPNIS is the “lungs of the planet”, condemned its inhabitants to eternal isolation, and therefore, made them pay for the historical ecological debt that industrialized countries are still accumulating.

The Indigenous who negotiated with Morales were filled with doubts, perhaps for the first time, but they had their persuasive “ecological advisers,” including foreigners, breathing down their neck. The latter persuaded them once again, and the indigenous signed the agreement. Evo passed it to the Legislative Assembly, the Act was passed, and the president signed it in record time. The TIPNIS became, according to the law now in effect, forever cloistered and without roads, thus making very difficult the provision of schools, hospitals, electricity and water, while industrialized countries, led by the United States, still polluted the air of the planet while refusing to reduce their carbon emissions. With regard to the environment, it was once again the old formula of “the clever lives off the donkey, and the donkey eats straw.” The United States’ political objective of boycotting the pole of development of the Chapare, under the community production model that so frightens it, was achieved with the complicity, conscious or not, of some Bolivians. Intervention in internal affairs remains alarming, and that forces us to reflect.

We all want the re-establishment of diplomatic relations based on mutual respect and equality of rights and obligations, but, considering that Bolivia does not conspire against the government of the United States, demanding only mutual respect, it is the Department of State that has to make a conscious effort to change its pattern of interventionist conduct in Bolivia.

This type of asymmetric diplomacy is as unfair as it is unsustainable. It is therefore urgent to sign the new framework agreement for diplomatic relations based on mutual respect, so that the Bolivian ambassador in Washington may finally be a dignified defender of his or her fatherland, and not, as was the case before, a simple agent of Washington working to persuade his own country to submit. It is time for a new type of diplomacy, honest and without paternalism.

Republished from www.juancarloszambrana.com

Bolivia president Evo Morales offers talks with TIPNIS protest marchers

noreply@blogger.com (Bolivia Rising) — Wed, 19 Oct 2011 03:50:00 +0000

Gerardo Bustillos (AFP)

LA PAZ — President Evo Morales offered direct talks with almost 2,000 indigenous people about to end a grueling protest march against government plans to build a highway through an Amazon nature preserve.

Morales, the first democratically elected indigenous president of this South American nation, finds his leadership challenged by a thorny national political debate over juggling native peoples' rights and economic development.

"This dialogue would aim to iron out and build consensus on their demands in the framework of broader political action," Morales' spokesman Carlos Romero said in a statement carried by the official news agency ABI. The talks could be held as soon as late Tuesday or Wednesday, Romero said.

Planners want the Brazil-financed road to run through the Isiboro Secure National Park and Indigenous Territory, leveling an ancestral homeland inhabited by 50,000 native people from three different native groups.

Work on the highway, which had been due to be operational in 2014, began in June, although not on the segment running through the protected park.

These isolated peoples from the humid lowlands are not from the main indigenous groups that make up most of majority-indigenous Bolivia's population, the highland Andean Aymara and Quechua.

The lowland people fear their traditional lands may be overrun by landless highland farmers.

Earlier the marchers, weary after weeks of walking but energized ahead of an expected triumphant entry into La Paz, massed in Pongo. It was not immediately clear what their response to Morales offer would be.

"We have no confidence in the Bolivian government. All they do is lie," said Fernando Vargas, leader of the demonstrators, gasping for breath as the group approached the highest-altitude capital city in the world.

The marchers, including women, children and elderly people, left the northern city of Trinidad in mid-August and have endured heavy rains, low temperatures, difficult mountainous terrain and police brutality during their 600 kilometer (370-mile) journey.

Earlier this month, Morales agreed to postpone construction of the roadway, a delay that was later approved by Bolivia's legislature. But the protesters are seeking assurances that the project -- or at least the Amazon portion of it -- will be scuttled for good.

"If work begins, we will fight in the forest until death," said indigenous leader Adolfo Chavez.

Interview: Bolivia senator Adolfo Mendoz (MAS) discusses law to suspend road through TIPNIS national park

noreply@blogger.com (Bolivia Rising) — Sat, 15 Oct 2011 21:46:00 +0000

Dario Kenner, La Paz

[Senator Adolfo Mendoza is a member of the Movement Towards Socialism (MAS) party led by President Evo Morales. He played a pivotal role in drafting the law suspending construction of the road through the TIPNIS. This law was approved in the senate yesterday. Bolivia Diary analysis on content of the law – Dario Kenner]

What does the approval of this law mean?

There was the need to establish a law because dialogue between the indigenous march and the executive branch was not working. The Plurinational Legislative Assembly and the indigenous march proposed draft laws. Work began between the indigenous deputies (such as Bienvenido Zacu) and MAS parliamentarians. Five out of the six articles from the indigenous marcher’s proposal are included in the approved law (still to be enacted by President Evo Morales). This was a consensus law for three reasons. Firstly, we agreed to use the indigenous march proposal as the basis for the law. Secondly, the proposal from the executive branch was rejected. Thirdly, the proposed referendum was rejected (see this article explaining why this is important). The only Article there was no consensus on was the one dealing with the suspension of the road.

This law proposes what should always have been done which is respect of the right to consultation of the owners of the territory. No one else can decide apart from the Mojeños, Yuracarés and Chimanes peoples who live inside the TIPNIS. There are several other provisions in the law such as preventing illegal settlements and a comprehensive management plan of the TIPNIS national park. (explained here)

Is this law a solution to the TIPNIS conflict?

I don´t think this is a solution because some of the leaders at the indigenous march have rejected it. It opens up the possibility for a dialogue and eventual solution.

What is strange is that some leaders at the indigenous march such as Rafael Quispe (key leader in indigenous movement CONAMAQ – see his views here) who are not from the TIPNIS reject this proposal to begin a process of free, prior and informed consultation. This is very bad for the Mojeños, Yuracarés and Chimanes.

The press are distorting the issue of whether the consultation is binding or not. This is a false discussion for several evident reasons. The Bolivian Constitution and international norms say indigenous peoples have the right to be consulted by the state. So free, prior and informed consultation is to reach an agreement that does not violate the rights of indigenous peoples. So it is arbitrary to discuss if it is binding or not. The word binding is not in the Bolivian Constitution, ILO Convention 169 or the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Like all roads lead to Rome, all the paths to solve this conflict are through consultation.

Pagina Siete (Bolivian newspaper) has distorted what President Evo Morales said yesterday (the newspaperreported Morales as saying consultation would not be binding). What he was actually talking about was the case put before international courts between Saramaka and the state of Surinam that is an emblematic case on prior consultation.

[The question of whether the consultation is binding or not is still not clear. For example this afternoon Bolivian Vice President Álvaro García Linera said the government would respect and guarantee the decision the result of the prior consultation with the indigenous peoples of the TIPNIS]

How can the consultation be prior if work has already begun on the road?

There are some important things to get across here. On 23 September 2011 the United Nations representative in Bolivia said in relation to the TIPNIS issue that it would be convenient to stop road building and do prior consultation. On 28 September 2011 James Anaya, Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous People on Indigenous Issues, said from Geneva that the way to solve the TIPNIS issue was to do prior consultation. The spirit of this law is to open the process of prior consultation.

The entire road does not go through the TIPNIS indigenous territory. There are two key elements. Two of the sections do not pass through the TIPNIS. The first section between Villa Tunari and Isinuta already exists; it does not touch the TIPNIS. TIPNIS has a boundary but it is not that where the boundary ends it is the moon or some imaginary place, it is part of Bolivia. If the state decided to build a road that was within 1 kilometre of the national park it would still affect it.

In the contract between the Bolivian Highway Authority and Brazilian company OAS it does not mention three sections, just one road. Can you explain this?

The contract with OAS has three sub-credits. Sub-credit A refers to the initial operations. Sub-credit B refers to the first and third sections. Sub-credit C refers to the second section. There is no final design for this second section and road building has not begun.

If there is no final design for the second section how can there be a calculation for the entire distance of the road and total cost?

How was the cost calculated? This was done through technical studies and based on comparing costs of other roads. OAS (Brazilian company building the road) has a proposal for the second section but there is no final design. There are several proposals on the table including going through the middle of the national park and on its borders. Another option would be to build a via-duct 55 kilometres long between Ichoa and Santo Domingo. The sub-credit C will not be disbursed until there is a final design and the results of the consultation.

Republished from Bolivia Diary

Election of judges a key test for Bolivia's Morales

noreply@blogger.com (Bolivia Rising) — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 03:45:00 +0000

By Carlos Alberto Quiroga

LA PAZ, Oct 13 (Reuters) - Bolivian President Evo Morales faces an important test this weekend when voters elect judges for the first time, the latest reform aimed at giving a bigger say to the country's indigenous majority.

Leftist Morales, Bolivia's first president of Indian descent, has been hurt by weeks of protests over his plans to build a highway through the Amazon, and Sunday's election is seen as a referendum on his presidency.

The candidates running for election to serve as 28 judges on four national courts do not represent political parties.

Morales' rightist rivals, however, have sought to undermine the election by urging voters to spoil their ballots. That means high turnout and few blank votes will be crucial for Morales as he seeks to regain his political footing after the damaging road protests.

Political analyst Jorge Lazarte said Sunday's election could mark "the beginning of the end" for Morales' hopes for a third consecutive term in 2014 if the ballot is perceived to be a failure for the government.

Morales, a fierce critic of U.S. foreign policy who rose into politics as leader of the coca farmers, has hinted at the possibility of running for re-election.

Low turnout and a sense that the opposition's campaign undermined Morales' reform drive could intensify pressure on the president after the road protest debacle and massive protests over a planned fuel price hike late last year.

In a speech at the pre-Colombian ruins of Tiwanaku this week, he said he was confident "a majority of the people will vote, defeating the rightist, neoliberal conspiracy."

He has billed the first direct election of national judges as "the next step in the refounding of Bolivia."

Besides a series of reforms aimed at giving more political power to the country's indigenous people, Morales has also reversed the privatizations of the free-market 1990s by strengthening the state's hand in the economy.

He nationalized the country's vast natural gas resources months after taking office in 2006, steps that proved popular with the country's poor majority.

Voters will choose members of the country's four national courts from a list of 116 candidates. Half the candidates are women and many are indigenous. The opposition rejects them because they were picked by the government-controlled Congress.

Until now, these judges were chosen directly by Congress.

The judicial shake-up is the latest in a series of reforms that Morales says will help reverse five centuries of discrimination against indigenous peoples in Bolivia and domination by a European-descended elite.

Morales managed to push through a new constitution in 2009, a key demand of the rebellious social groups that toppled two governments between 2003 and 2005.

But he has encountered growing resistance over the last year, facing opposition even within his indigenous support base over the fuel price hike and his plan to build a road that cuts through the TIPNIS indigenous territory and national park.

Opponents have urged voters to scuttle the judicial vote to protest the government's handling of anti-road demonstrations.

"A spoiled ballot paper is a vote in favor of the TIPNIS," opposition lawmaker Roy Moroni said last week. "That is the way to reject these undemocratic elections."

(Writing by Helen Popper; Editing by Cynthia Osterman)

Bolivia lawmakers halt contested highway plans

noreply@blogger.com (Bolivia Rising) — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 22:33:00 +0000

AFP, La Paz — Bolivian lawmakers agreed Tuesday to postpone plans to build a highway through an Amazon nature preserve after months-long mass protests from indigenous people.

The Chamber of Deputies approved President Evo Morales's decision to halt the project in order to consult with the local population in the wake of police violence against the demonstrators for which he has apologized.

The Brazil-financed road was due to run through the Isiboro Secure reserve, home to some 50,000 natives from three different indigenous groups.

These isolated groups, from the humid lowlands, are not from the main indigenous groups that make up most of Bolivia's population, the highland Andean Aymara and Quechua peoples.

The lowland people fear their traditional lands may be overrun by landless highland farmers.

Protesters left the northern city of Trinidad in mid-August and are now about 80 kilometers (50 miles) from the capital La Paz, though facing high altitude and frigid conditions that have slowed their march.

Once they have reached their destination, the protesters will have marched some 600 kilometers (370 miles).

"We should be arriving next week, Tuesday or Wednesday," march leader Miguel Charupa told AFP.

"We are not particularly in a hurry to arrive in La Paz."

He said protesters now numbered about 2,000.

A counter-protest of about 1,000 government supporters was expected Wednesday in the capital.

Chamber of Deputies president Hector Arce said halting the road project in response to the Indians demands would open the way for an "informed dialogue" with the affected communities.

But protesters ignored the parliamentary vote, just as they have rejected the proposal from Morales. They demand that the project be canceled, not just postponed.

Work on the highway, which had been due to be operational in 2014, began in June, though not on the segment running through the reserve.

Interview with former Bolivia Vice Minister for Rural Development Roxana Liendo: Reflections on TIPNIS and rural development

noreply@blogger.com (Bolivia Rising) — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 22:30:00 +0000

[Roxana Liendo resigned on 26 September from her post in the Vice Ministry of Rural Development in protest at thepolice repression of a march by indigenous movements. They are marching against the Bolivian governments plan to build a road through the TIPNIS national park and indigenous territory. I talked to her about why she decided to resign and also about the importance of rural development in Bolivia - Dario Kenner]

What position did you have in the government?

I was Coordinator of SISPAM (Information and monitoring system on agricultural production, prices and markets) in the Vice Ministry of Rural Development. My job was to monitor agricultural production and prices (national and international) to then inform government policy. I was invited to do the job by the Vice Minister of Rural Development in July 2011. I was glad to be there because I believe rural development is very important.

Between September 2007 and March 2008 I was Vice Minister of Rural Development.

Why is rural development important?

It is the way to achieve food security and sovereignty. Agro-industry is important to generate income from exports but the majority of what is consumed in Bolivia is produced by small scale producers, they are the pillars of food security who cover about 60-70% of the family food basket. From the start of the Morales government in 2006 there was more technical support for these small producers. The aim was to reduce imports of products like wheat. Bolivia has great potential because of its varied ecosystems and large land area to first cover internal demand and then export.

The problem is land. There are around 5.5 million hectares of productive land but only half is cultivated, this is partly due to rotation of land. There is sufficient land but it depends on who owns it. The majority of the most fertile land is in the hands of the agro-exporters. There are no up to date studies but we know a lot of the soya production is in the hands of Brazilians, Colombians and Paraguayans. Small plots are common in the western highlands and central valleys.

How can the distribution of land change?

The process of agrarian reform and reversion of lands needs to be deepened. There have been some fiscal (state) lands that have been distributed but there has been little attack on the big landowners in the east. But the problem is how will people adapt if you give lands in the east to people from the western highlands? They find it very difficult to adapt to the tropical climate. Programmes have to be implemented with comprehensive support from the state to support these settlements in their initial years. The lands in the west also have potential. There must also be programmes to increase productivity of lands in the western highlands such as irrigation, making credit available, technical assistance and appropriate mechanisation.

Crops in Bolivia´s western highlands (credit: Dario Kenner)

Has rural development been a priority of the Morales government?

It was in the first few years. There were important changes and from 2006 there was a big push for an alternative way of doing development. But when it got down to the practical ways this would be done we repeated many of the methods and ideas of previous governments such as using tractors and fertilizers. These methods do bring fast results but have negative environmental impacts. What was difficult was to find medium term strategies. I believe implementing a new way of doing things is crucial to deepen the process of change.

When I was Vice Minister of Rural Development there was a policy of state-led rural and forestry development. It was based on a pyramid of state companies at the top (EMAPA), followed by a mixed economy with alliances between the state and small producers (for example seed producers), and with support for small producers at the bottom (CRIAR programme); and that took into account forestry activities as part of a integrated rural development approach. But since I left in March 2008 I saw this integrated approach fragment and now there is little of it left.

Do you think the government will change its position on the TIPNIS issue? Will the government change the route of the road so it does not go through the TIPNIS?

The government must do a deeper political analysis. They need to calculate the consequences of their actions. A road is important but the current route is not justified. We do need a road to integrate and it is important. But we do not just need a major highway that will allow heavy goods vehicles to move goods from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean. The government should listen to the indigenous peoples who are saying they do need a road. This is a basis for dialogue. What is at stake is not if there will be a road but instead where it goes. Hopefully everyone will agree on a route that is good for all.

I hope the government will listen to more critical voices from inside such as the Foreign Minister David Choquehuanca (incidentally Choquehuanca was a crucial figure who convinced President Morales to reverse the controversial gasolinazo in December 2010).

Indigenous march leaving Caranavi a few days ago on its way to La Paz (credit: Communications Commission of the march)

What is the impact of the government not revealing who gave the order for the police repression of the indigenous march on 25 September?

It is mistaken political calculation. The more time the government does not recognise its responsibility the more mistrust it generates in the population. I don´t know about the rest of the country but this is definitely the case in La Paz. It generates a loss of trust. The government must be transparent and tell us what happened. In community justice the principles of asking for forgiveness and reparation are very important for the indigenous peoples. Evo has asked for forgiveness and I thought it was genuine but then in the days afterwards it didn´t look as much like it was.

Why did you resign?

Many people have asked me and even questioned by decision. For several years I fought from the inside for alternatives and change. But there was no space for debate, no openness. It soon became clear that the hegemonic ideology was to deepen the extractive and modernisation model of development.

At the end of August I said to my colleagues that as a government we cannot go against basic principles such as the cultural identity of indigenous peoples and of Mother Earth. I said I didn´t want to be part of a process of generating conflict between campesinos and indigenous peoples (see this article explaining the difference).

My limit is when people are not respected. As soon as I heard about the violence and repression of the indigenous march I handed in my resignation (letter) the next day.

What impact will the TIPNIS issue have on the future of the process of change?

I hope there will not be clashes between grassroots groups who were crucial to establishing this process of change. It looks like the most negative impact in the long-term will be the polarisation between these groups. They should work together because they have common needs and demands.

The positive effect has been the intense debates about the difference between discourse and practice, on Mother Earth and Vivir Bien (to “Live Well“) as a new model of development. I hope these spaces for debate continue and the government listens to them. We are discussing a lot more what is Vivir Bien. How does industrial and rural development link to Vivir Bien? We don´t really know. We need to get a lot more practical and concrete about what we mean and how we do Vivir Bien.

People abroad need to understand Bolivia is a poor country. We need to generate income and can´t just rely on foreign aid. This is part of achieving our sovereignty. We don’t want to depend on others. We should take advantage of the natural resources from extractive industries to focus on building the foundations for a more sustainable, equal and inclusive development.

Republished from Bolivia Diary

The critical moment for Bolivians

noreply@blogger.com (Bolivia Rising) — Mon, 10 Oct 2011 02:11:00 +0000

Cambio- Septemper, 30 2011

Juan Carlos Zambrana Marchetti

Recent events concerning the conflict generated by the construction of the highway through the TIPNIS require a stop along the road to attempt an act of reflection. The media hurried to condemn what it called the brutality of the violent police repression of the march of indigenous people, the death of a child, and a large number of disappeared. Public opinion, including the government’s, swallowed the news without questioning it, because it was not easy to detect such malice in the description of the events.

“Disappeared” is not a term for those who went into hiding or headed out into the wilderness. The term applies to the 30,000 young people who were thrown into the River Plate in Argentina during the right-wing dictatorships. The death of a child was not confirmed, either, but that did not stop the dissemination of the report like a trail of gunpowder. Emphasis was placed on the words “repression” and “brutality,” in order to evoke the memories of the dictatorships and neoliberal governments. With emotions exacerbated, public opinion was detoured from rational analysis and trapped in deceit.

No one recalled, for example, that the indigenous president, yielding to the demands of the marchers, had sent his highest-level diplomat, also indigenous, to negotiate under pressure within a march in which there were indigenous people armed with bows and arrows, and whose attitude was in no way diplomatic; that they acted threateningly towards him and forced him to march along with them, using him as a shield to break the police blockade that had been set up to avoid a confrontation with other indigenous people who waited in their path to stop them.

Under those circumstances, the police, among whom there were surely indigenous officers, were threatened by the marchers. There was no exaggeration in the frequent use of the word “indigenous” in the recounting of these events. The fact is that, since Morales rose to power, giving a leading role to the indigenous and recognizing their rights, their autonomy, and their 36 nations within the new Plurinational State, the Right, unable to defend its postulates, has “discovered” its own indigenism, politically opposed to Morales. The transnationals, the NGOs, the power sectors, the church, the media, and every political aspiration, are now indigenist.

The golden dream of the opposition to Morales is to force a confrontation among indigenous people, obtain a few deaths, and expel the president like Sanchez de Lozada was expelled. So prepared were they for the effort that one of the opposition parties hastened to bring charges of genocide against Morales without there being a single shot, a single killing, or the slightest grounds to support the crime mentioned. They know that the complaint has no possibility of moving forward, but that has never been the objective, which is continuous and sustained disinformation to promote discontent.

Nothing justifies the excess of violence, but one cannot help but notice the sophisticated opposition lattice of plans designed to provoke it, blame it on Morales, exaggerate it, and publicize it. That could explain the government’s fear of committing any violence, due also to the high standard of respect for life and to civil rights to which it is committed. Without a doubt, there is an enormous campaign against Morales, because, while from Chile to Europe and by way of the United States, far less provocative protests are daily repressed with much more violence, the international media concentrates on exaggerating and taking out of context the case of Bolivia.

The conflict, nonetheless, goes far beyond what is seen, for it has at its heart an element too dangerous to remain unperceived. Perhaps due to idealism, and to the opposition’s strategy of calling him “dictator” in order to neutralize his overwhelming majority, Morales committed an error much like that which weakened president German Bush: nullifying the legitimate parliamentary force that supported him. Morales did not shut down Congress, but did reduce enormously its power, making it submit anew, directly and constantly, to the will of the people, not taking into account that fragments of that people remained largely trapped by the same transnational powers that had just lost the elections. Politically defeated, but economically powerful, the Right invested fortunes in the manipulation of that “people” and set off the chaos that has never ceased to strike back at Morales.

Now, if we believe the media, we would get the impression that the people have turned their backs on the president, or even worse. Blockades, strikes, marches, protests and more protests, as if they faced a government that has betrayed the national interests and subjugates the people in order to loot them. That takes place because, by legislating inadequately the mechanisms of consultation and protest, a popular government with two-thirds of parliamentary power has allowed itself to be reduced to the will of its defeated opponents, who act covertly in the name of the people in order to destroy the government’s agenda. It is not the people who protest, as hard as that may be to understand because the disinformation has gained ground and confused various segments of society. The manipulators are few, but very powerful, and know how to broadcast their discourse.

Bolivians must rapidly internalize all of the power that they have achieved with Morales, in order to understand that a government based on the sustained respect of the people requires the participation of a people who think and are free of the ties of colonialism. The moment is critical, therefore, not for Evo and his government, but at bottom for the Bolivian people and the future that it is betting while marching like automatons toward the destruction of their own emancipatory process. Their dilemma is whether to open their eyes to see who is hiding behind the parapets of organizations that tempt some of their leaders with power, or to go off the cliff playing useful fools in a regressive political change that would place the government in the hands of their historical enemies.

The country has been many times in situations where, because of excessive demands from the Left, power ended up in the hands of the Right, which only restored immediately its full structure of looting and illicit enrichment, without the least regard for the indigenous people nor the misguided Left that supported it in subversion. That happened with the governments of Gualberto Villarroel and of Juan Jose Torres, among others.

It is now up to the Bolivian people to make an effort to overcome the old patterns of conduct, and to add political clarity to the courage, tenacity, and extraordinary capacity to organize with which they have won such a grand conquest. That missing element would consolidate indigenous Bolivians not only as formidable combatants, but also as a thinking people capable of sustaining their own success.

Republished from Juan Carlos Zambrano's blog