In my opinion, this particular section is an ingenious bit of divide and conquer on the part of the Forest Companies.
Here's why:
1) If you look at the attached Map of this agreement, you will see that large chunks of the Boreal Forest are designated under the agreement as "Commercial Forestry Zone". As the forestry companies who are party to the agreement will not be logging in areas designated as "Area of Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement', where is clear-cut logging likely to intensify during the three years of the agreement? Obviously in the area designated as "Commercial Forestry Zone"! Please Note: Grassy Narrows' entire traditional territory is now designated under this agreement as 'Commercial Forestry Zone'.
2) Many First Nations and their allies in the smaller environmental groups will certainly try and protect sections of these "Commercial Forestry Zones" For example Grassy Narrows First Nation. How can they do that? Boycotts of the products of the Forest Companies who are destroying their lands, direct actions, media campaigns etc. In short, everything this agreement was
designed to prevent.
3) Greenpeace, Forest Ethics and other ENGO's are party to this agreement. It is likely that other ENGO's, some First Nations and some Aboriginal organizations will sign onto this agreement. The signatories to this agreement are actively trying to recruit other groups to sign on and be bound by this agreement.
4) All of the groups who have and are likely to sign on to this agreement, are associated with other ENGO's and First Nations "through membership or otherwise". For example, a few weeks ago Greenpeace was supporting Grassy Narrows at protests at Queen's Park over Mercury Poisoning, Forest Ethics (as far as I know) supported Grassy Narrows in their logging blockades.
5) My read of pages 38 and 39 (section 12) is that it sets up an intelligence service for the Forest Industry where signatory members must immediately inform on other "third parties" to the Forest Industry if those "third parties" are planning any sort of actions against, for example, Weyerhaeuser. Not only that, but the ENGO signatories to the agreement are also required to work with the Forest Companies to neutralize the statements or planned actions of those "third parties".
I say that this is an ingenious bit of divide and conquer because, it obliges the signatories to inform on anyone they are associated with (who does not go along with this deal) to the Forest Companies. This creates mistrust that weakens the larger environmental movement, weakens the Indigenous rights movement and weakens existing or emerging alliances between Indigenous
People and ENGO's.
The only way to avoid all this division is to remember that only a few individuals in the ENGO's who signed this agreement have actually read the entire agreement. The leadership of these groups only released an 8 page abridged version of the agreement to the public and the attached leaked 39 pages of the agreement does not include any of the Schedules or maps that are also part of the agreement.
One big question is: When the agreement runs out in three years, where will the companies log then?
Anyway, what do you make of this new agreement? hope you let me know.
For Land and Life,
John H.W. Hummel
Nelson, B.C.
P.S. Here is a recent
press release I found on the Internet from a group called 'Ecological Internet' which points out other potential difficulties regarding this new Deal.
