'Tragic incident is a strong indication something has gone seriously wrong’
Interview with Forest Stewardship Council International Director General Kim Carstensen about recent arrow attack in Peru's Amazon
You could call it, riffing on Colombian writer Gabriel García Marquez, “Chronicle of an Arrow Attack Foretold.” After years and years of warning of the dangers of permitting an industrial-scale logging company to operate in an area of the south-east Peruvian Amazon that is part of the territories of indigenous people living in “isolation”, tragedy finally struck. In an encounter in mid-August with the “isolated” Mashco-Piro in the remote Madre de Dios region, one logger was killed and another gravely wounded.
For years, the concession held by that company, Maderera Canales Tahuamanu (MCT), has been certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), as I’ve reported previously. A formal statement by the FSC made in response to the tragic events suggested that they totally fail to understand why it is so wrong - for all kinds of reasons - for loggers to operate on “isolated” indigenous peoples’ land. Here, via email, I ask the FSC International’s Director General Kim Carstensen about what happened:
DH: I’ve seen footage of the injured logger from MCT lying in hospital, obviously in serious pain. What was your personal reaction when you heard about the attack?
KC: I haven’t seen any footage about the tragic events, but I was disturbed to hear that this had happened in or near a certified area. This was the first time I had heard about an incident related to a certified area bordering on the territory of a people living in voluntary isolation. Therefore, in addition to our normal reaction in cases of this nature – which is to understand the facts of the matter as well as we can and ensure that it is being investigated whether our rules have been followed by the Certificate Holder – I also raised the question whether we have good enough rules or guidance related to these situations of conflicts with people living in voluntary isolation.
DH: With the greatest respect, you’re giving the impression of not understanding the situation! You said this “happened in or near a certified area”, but there is no “or” or “near” about it. It definitely happened inside MCT’s concession. Do you not accept that?
KC: My interest is wider than finding out who can be blamed for what in the tragic incident that happened. I’m interested in understanding what we can learn from it, and how we can improve our systems. Therefore, I’m looking at it more generically. In my mind there is an issue that we need to understand related to people living in voluntary isolation, both in the case that the incident happened inside the certified area, and in case it had happened outside, for instance by means of staff straying beyond the boundaries of the certified area.
DH: In making that point and asking that question I’m not trying to “blame” anyone: I’m just trying to make sure you understand what happened, because obviously that is essential if anything is going to be learnt. It’s the same with my next question. You also give the impression of not understanding the situation by referring to the “certified area bordering on the territory of a people living in voluntary isolation.” But it’s not “bordering on” their territory: a huge chunk of the area is part of their territory! At the eastern extremities, sure, but nevertheless still part of it. Or do you not accept that either?
KC: My understanding is that the reserve established 20 years ago by the Peruvian Government for the people living in voluntary isolation borders on the forest concession. Plans by the Peruvian Government to increase the area of the reserve have come a long way, but as you also report yourself, there is no final decision in the process.
DH: It’s more complex than that. The proposal for the reserve by indigenous federation FENAMAD was much bigger than what was included when it was actually established in April 2002, meaning that huge swathes of the “isolated” peoples’ territories were left out. Among that was more than two thirds of what is now MCT’s concession, established the month after the reserve was created, May 2002, which MCT signed for in the June. In other words, instead of including that forest in an off-limits reserve because it had been documented as being part of the territories of people in “isolation”, Peru’s government gave it to the logging industry. Another way of putting this: 20 years ago the government quite patently ignored the overwhelming evidence that that area was part of the “isolated” peoples’ land and instead opened it up to MCT. It’s really important that the FSC understands this, and that it does so publicly. Do you accept what I’m saying here?
KC: I agree there are more sides to the story than the Peruvian Government’s decisions on the boundaries of the reserve. These are important for any decision on FSC certification or not, but the reality of the Indigenous Peoples, isolated or not, who live in the area is another, as important, element for management decisions related to the area.
DH: Without this history it’s impossible to contextualise the ongoing process to expand the reserve eastwards, into MCT’s concession and others. That’s to say, that process - which has the support of the Culture Ministry (MINCU) and the state-run Multisector Commission responsible for establishing and updating these kinds of reserves - has not been set in motion because suddenly, after all these years, evidence has come to light that the “isolated” peoples move that far east, or because they have recently decided to do so. It is because they’ve always - or at least for decades - moved that far east, and that was known before both the reserve and MCT’s concession were established in 2002. By the way, the biggest obstacle to blocking the reserve’s expansion - which MINCU agreed to in 2016, six years ago! - is MCT’s concession and others. Does it concern you that, in addition to the fact that the FSC is certifying a concession that has been known for more than two decades to include “isolated” indigenous peoples’ territories, the existence of that same concession is blocking an attempt to recognise that actually that area is theirs?
KC: The fact that a concession area is certified by FSC does not automatically mean that all of the area can be freely accessed and used for logging purposes. According to our rules, the certified concession needs to have a management plan meeting a range of requirements including the dedication of protected zones inside the concession area and respect for the rights of Indigenous Peoples living inside or near the concession.
DH: I can assure you that MCT has been operating in parts of its FSC-certified concession that are within the territories of people in “isolation” - if it didn’t, it would have almost nowhere to log! Have a look at the map I’m sending you, which has previously been made public but which you appear not to have seen. It shows how much of MCT’s concession - technically two adjacent concessions, marked with “Canales Tahuamanu” - falls within the proposal to expand the reserve, and how they’ve been clearing access roads and making camps in most of that area, particularly in the northern part. Worse, a lot of this work has been done from 2017 onwards, i.e. after MINCU accepted that this area was part of the “isolated” people’s territories. Worse still, some of it has been happening near or right up against the boundary of the existing reserve, i.e. pretty much as deep and as far west into MCT’s concession as it’s possible to go, and therefore really quite a long way into what would be the reserve if it was expanded. I’d be astonished if this doesn’t seriously concern you?
KC: This whole case concerns me gravely, and the tragic incident is a strong indication that something has gone seriously wrong. The information you have provided is important input to our efforts to learn from this and check if our rules are clear enough to cover cases like these, and to see whether the FSC certified area has been managed in a way that meets our requirements.
DH: I think the problem is more fundamental than whether or not the “FSC certified area has been managed in a way that meets our requirements.” It should never have been certified in the first place! The FSC claims to respect indigenous peoples’ right to free, prior and informed consent (FPIC), right?
KC: I understand your point, but I do not agree. The rights to log in the area come from the Peruvian Government in the form of the concession. What the FSC certification does is to create an obligation of having a management plan that – among many other things – protects the high conservation values of the area in question and respects human rights, including the rights of Indigenous Peoples. The tragic incident earlier this year, and the information you have provided, raise serious questions about whether these rights have been understood correctly and respected in this case.
DH: I’m not sure I understand your line of reasoning there, but I want to come back to FPIC. Last year the FSC issued guidelines specifically about the right of indigenous peoples to FPIC, asserting that FSC-certified organisations must obtain it from “affected rights holders.” You don’t really think the people in “isolation” have given their consent to MCT or any other loggers operating in that area, do you?
KC: As a matter of principle, I don’t believe it can be assumed that people living in voluntary isolation have given their consent to any intervention in their territory.
DH: Of course not, it would be impossible for them to give their FPIC, it would be a contradiction in terms, and yet somehow the MCT concession, so much of which includes the territories of people in “isolation”, has been certified by the FSC! It’s the same with MADERYJA’s concession, to the north of MCT’s, which you can see on that map. This brings me to my final question. As has been documented over and over again in recent decades, people in “isolation” lack immunological defences and therefore are extremely vulnerable to contact with “outsiders”, even other indigenous peoples, making the transmission of usually harmless germs and diseases potentially devastating. I want to be sure the FSC understands this - that loggers, whether it’s in MCT’s concession or elsewhere, entering and operating territories used or inhabited by people in “isolation” pose immense risks to the latter’s health, wellbeing and survival, and could easily precipitate an epidemic that leads to large numbers of people dying, as has happened so many times in the Amazon in the past?
KC: I agree the issue of contact with Indigenous Peoples living in voluntary isolation is a real concern, and that consequences of contact can be very grave. This is true for contact with loggers as it is for contact with any other group of people from the outside. FSC certification is not in itself a cause for such problems, but given the tragic incident in Peru, we are checking whether our rules are clear and accurate enough to guide and drive certificate holders to avoid them.
DH: Thank you, Kim.