12 Comments

• 

  Bill Occam on Nov 25, 2011

  The writer here appears to believe that President Morales means what he says. I find it is always dangerous to trust the words that emerge from politicians.. It is far more useful to examine the actions of such people.

  From observation, Morales seems more committed to continuing the neo-liberal policies of his predecessors than he is to environmentalism.

  • 

    Cory Morningstar on Nov 26, 2011

    Hi Bill,

    I too would agree that it is dangerous to trust the words that emerge from politicians and that we must carefully examine their actions. I would add that this is not only wise and applicable in regards to politicians, such scrutiny must also extend to the key instruments that are imperative to the global elites to serve and further their agendas. These include corporate NGOs, corporate media, institutions such as the United Nations, etc.

    You state from your own observation that “Morales seems more committed to continuing the neoliberal policies of his predecessors than he is to environmentalism.” Yet, here we have all kinds of NGOs gathering support for REDD – with the Morales government leading the opposition against REDD. So who is really concerned/committed to furthering neoliberal policies than protecting the environment and Indigenous rights? Clearly the corporate funded NGOs.

• 

  Kylie Benton-Connell on Nov 24, 2011

  Dear Cory,

  I’m glad that people are reading the article I wrote for Alternet, and discussing the issues that it raises. Unfortunately, you completely misread it – I won’t respond point by point to each of the mischaracterizations in your post, since this would be a lengthy undertaking (it’s great to see that readers are picking them up too – thanks Lucy!) but it does seem important to make a couple of general corrections.

  The report “Off the Market” (which readers can find here: http://democracyctr.org/featured/off-the-market/) was an attempt to introduce a very complex issue to a new audience from a number of angles – including the debate about forest offsets, and the ways that paying for forest carbon runs into some of the toughest issues in Bolivian politics, like indigenous rights, land distribution and industrialisation. The Bolivian government’s outspoken stance in the international climate negotiations has meant that it’s been the focus of a lot of international attention from the climate justice movement; and we saw the issue as an important one to explore, particularly in terms of the many different Bolivian voices that are relevant to this debate, and what the rest of the world can learn from what’s happening there. It is not a ‘policy statement’ about the Democracy Center’s position on REDD – and to imply that we were trying to put pressure on the Bolivian government to be more forest carbon market-friendly is just plain wrong, and, frankly, irresponsible.

  For the record, the project was something I proposed during my time at the Center – it was not an external initiative, and we received no direct funding for it, from Rockefeller or anyone else. You can find the first piece that I wrote for the Democracy Center on the issue here: http://democracyctr.org/blogfrombolivia/british-petroleum-and-the-environment-the-bolivian-connection/, where I said ‘But if preserving these forests means allowing companies like BP to continue their oily business as usual, forest offsets are going to continue to be a tough sell.’ It was hardly a defence of corporate-backed REDD. Neither was the report.

  Of course there are real debates about the role of international NGOs in countries like Bolivia, and the funding that goes to them from foundations. Like the debate about the role of international solidarity activists, it’s an important one to have. I want to participate in these discussions, but only when they’re constructive and free from misrepresentation.

  Best,
  Kylie Benton-Connell

  • 

    Cory Morningstar on Nov 26, 2011

    Hi Kylie,

    I’m not certain how I’ve misread your article, however, I’m definitely open to being corrected. You state the report “Off the Market” is not a policy statement – could you please tell me where one finds the ‘Democracy’ Center’s policy statement outlining (concisely) their position on REDD?

    You state you disagree with my opinion (an opinion shared by many others both outside and inside Bolivia) that ‘Democracy’ Center played an integral role in “pressuring the government” – however, I don’t believe the ‘Democracy’ Center (with many other NGOs funded by foreign interests) simply placed pressure on the Bolivian Gov’t to be more “forest carbon market-friendly” – I believe, along with many others, that this is a case of NGOS, including the ‘Democracy’ Center, strategically and deliberately undermining the Morales Government and manipulating the very people that the “Democracy” Center claims to represent in order to serve foreign interests that fund the ‘Democracy’ Center and the other NGOs which assisted in the attack campaign against Morales. This goes far beyond the words you use to describe my assessment: “just plain wrong, and, frankly, irresponsible” – the actions of the ‘Democracy’ Center are to be blunt – sinister.

    I never suggested the ‘Democracy’ Center itself received “direct funding” for the REDD report. The fact a U.S. funded “Democracy” Center (situated in Bolivia) – funded by the very same elites that have been behind the massive push for REDD (and most all other neoliberal policies that benefit Imperialist states and global elites) speaks volumes. As far as the first piece you wrote, in which you highlight that you stated “But if preserving these forests means allowing companies like BP to continue their oily business as usual, forest offsets are going to continue to be a tough sell”, you argue that this sentence proves the report was “hardly a defense of corporate-backed REDD – neither was the report.” Fair enough, but stating the obvious – “that forest offsets are going to continue to be a tough sell” is certainly not articulating a principled position against REDD.

    While we obviously do not agree on the role ‘Democracy’ Center in regards to the destabilization effort & demonization campaign of the Morales Gov’t – I am pleased that you are willing to recognize a critical debate currently blacklisted by the environmental movement itself – that being the role of international NGOs in liberating countries like Bolivia, and the funding that they are dependent upon from foundations.

    Finally, while I appreciate you responding, I must state that your response essentially sidesteps the entire premise of the issue at hand: Does the “Democracy” Center support REDD (in all or some form) or not? Surely it is a simply yes or no answer. This is what the ‘Democracy’ Center continues to refuse to clearly state (along with many other NGOs), yet, the open advocacy of the Amazonia REDD project reveals that the answer is yes, that the ‘Democracy’ Center does in fact support REDD. Until I read a policy statement stating otherwise, I stand by the opinion that this report was used as a mechanism for placing pressure on the Morales government.

    “In our inability to avert an oncoming ecological collapse, coupled with what appears to be an insurmountable climate genocide, we must understand how the forces we seek to resist constantly absorb opposition, through compromised NGOs and other means. Never underestimate the strategies and mechanisms of the global elites for retaining their power, control, and domination of Earth and her inhabitants. Cognitive dissonance compromises environmental activism. We must open our eyes, even if the ugliness is difficult to accept. Many seemingly credible activists who are paid to “lead” environmental organizations cannot admit to themselves that they have caved into the very systems they purport to oppose; there is no acceptable excuse for such lack of judgement and foresight – for if it is ignorance, it is willful. It is no longer singular individuals who create and shape our systems. Instead, the plutocrats construct and mould the systems and sustain illusory movements.”

    I hope you will be interested in a powerful declaration that just came out today from several Indigenous organizations from Ecuador, Panama, India, Nicaragua, Peru and Samoa. This is what NO TO REDD looks like – the words are unequivocal: “We, the Indigenous Peoples denounce the serious situation we are facing; the harmonious relationship between humans and Mother Earth has been broken. The life of people and Pachamama has become a business. Life, for Indigenous Peoples, is sacred, and we therefore consider REDD+ and the carbon market a hypocrisy which will not impact global warming. … For us, everything is life, and life cannot be negotiated or sold on a stock market, this is a huge risk and will not resolve the environmental crisis. We call upon all people committed to climate justice to support life, and we implore the global community to take responsibility for reducing emission of green house gases at the source and to reject REDD+ as a false solution that breads a new form of climate racism.”

    http://bit.ly/vP7qSm

• 

  Lucy on Nov 24, 2011

  This post seems to misrepresent the article you quote from Alternet; seems to invent some kind of conspiracy theory that the purpose of the TIPNIS campaign (that’s only recently gained significant international attention) is to ‘destabilise Bolivia’; and probably overstates the power small NGOs like The Democracy Center and Amazon Watch, or ‘online portals’ like AVAAZ, have in Bolivian politics and social movements.

  With the Alternet article, you state this sentence ”The decision linking forest conservation to carbon markets may well be finalized at the UN climate negotiations in Durban at the beginning of December, unless it is blocked by dissident countries” is confirmation of ”Democracy Centre’s opposition to the Bolivian Morales government’s position and the Centre’s support for REDD”. This isn’t what this sentence says at all – ‘dissident’ here just means ‘dissenting’ – which the Morales government has been doing (bravely and probably with great difficulty) at the UN climate negotiations on REDD.

  Also, I think you’re misquoting the Reuters research and REDD-Monitor post when you say ‘The money behind the REDD scheme is in the trillions.’ It isn’t anywhere near that (yet). The commodity traders Reuters profiled have ‘between them have revenues of US$1.1 trillion a year’ – which includes oil, coal and a lot more than a few flimsy REDD credits. The Reuters profile is still useful – helps us understand who is and will profit from a REDD market (commodity traders / banks, fossil fuel companies, and to a lesser but significant extent, large international conservation NGOs).

  • 

    Cory Morningstar on Nov 26, 2011

    Hi Lucy,

    I believe you may have missed my point in the first paragraph. The role of Avaaz, Amazon Watch, Democracy Center and other NGOs funded by global elites was/is not to exert their power in Bolivia (USAID is much better for directly doing that). Rather, their role is to provide a “left” face outside of Bolivia (which is where they do most of their campaigning) in such campaigns, in this case, the campaign to slander/demonize Morales in the International community, and win support for USAID promoted policies – the same policies which serve the NGO funders.

    In the second paragraph you believe the statement by the Democracy Center: “The decision linking forest conservation to carbon markets may well be finalized at the UN climate negotiations in Durban at the beginning of December, unless it is blocked by dissident countries” simply means Bolivia is dissenting. The Democracy Center chose to use the word ‘dissident’, not I. I do agree that the Morales gov’t (with ALBA) will dissent. The actually intent behind the word chosen by DC matters little as the most important aspect of this statement is this – that the REDD scheme is about to cross the finish line – and the only one standing in the way of this long sought after scheme of the global elites was/is Bolivia (& now ALBA). This further strengthens the belief by many that the recent attempt to alienate Morales supporters and destabilize his gov’t. was, at least in part, due to the bold opposition to REDD. Indeed, after two decades the elites are finally almost there in this latest neoliberal plot to commodify the Earth’s last remaining resources under the guise of protecting the environment and dealing with emissions. That being said, I am very much appreciate of your supportive words in response to Morales: “‘dissident’ here just means ‘dissenting’ – which the Morales government has been doing (bravely and probably with great difficulty) at the UN climate negotiations on REDD.” It is a grave mistake to underestimate the reaction from Imperialist GHG leading obstructionist states towards those countries who refuse to abandon their revolutionary movements which seek to break free of Imperialism and use their shared natural resources to benefit their own people rather than serve the rich. Libya is a casing point.

    The last point – on the carbon markets. I understand the markets are not there at present (like you state in brackets – “yet”). I could have worded that more carefully. I am speaking to the potential of wealth the elites are counting on from yet another ‘climate wealth’ scheme. Having inside knowledge of REDD, which I am not at liberty to discuss here, I can assure you the REDD scheme is going to involve massive amounts of money – in the trillions – which will be authorized by a blitz of phony accreditation.