A1. Favorites

In Jakarta, on Tuesday, February 27, 2024, the Indonesian Peasants Union (SPI), alongside the Civil Society Coalition for Economic Justice, held a demonstration outside the Ministry of Trade of the Republic of Indonesia. This protest was a response to the 13th WTO Ministerial Conference convened in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, from February 26-29, 2024. The primary objective of the protest was to voice opposition to trade liberalization and advocate for Indonesia’s withdrawal from the WTO, emphasizing its detrimental effects on small-scale farmers in the country.

Since its establishment, the WTO has aimed to regulate international trade based on the principles outlined in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). GATT’s fundamental principle is trade liberalization, advocating for the elimination of all trade barriers to facilitate “fair” trade. Consequently, countries are prohibited from imposing tariffs or non-tariff measures to shield their economies, thereby placing small farmers who produce essential food items at a disadvantage as they are compelled to compete with well-funded corporations.

The importation of food has proven to be particularly harmful to small-scale food producers in Indonesia. For instance, the importation of 3 million tons of rice in 2024 led to a decrease in rice prices at the local farmer level across various regions. This policy is aligned with WTO principles, prioritizing free trade without considering the welfare of domestic producers. Indonesia has faced WTO interventions on multiple occasions, such as in 2021 regarding chicken meat imports and in 2017 concerning horticulture and animal product imports. These interventions have also influenced the Omnibus Law on Job Creation, further enabling trade liberalization.

Given these concerns, SPI continues to call on the government to exclude agriculture from WTO discussions. Furthermore, WTO free trade policies do not align with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (UNDROP). Despite Indonesia and the G33 countries consistently advocating for exemptions such as Public Stock Holding (PSH) and Special and Differential Treatment (S&DT) in WTO negotiations, these efforts have been rebuffed by developed countries and are viewed as violating WTO principles. Therefore, in addition to advocating for withdrawal from the WTO, SPI stresses the importance of the government committing to achieving food sovereignty—a concept ensuring access to nutritionally adequate and culturally appropriate food produced through sustainable and environmentally friendly agricultural practices.

Source: SPI Website

The post Indonesia: SPI Urges Government to Exclude Agriculture from WTO Discussions appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

In a press release issued on 27th February, the European Coordination Via Campesina demanded an obligation at the EU level to ensure prices paid to farmers cover the costs of production, including a decent income for the work of farmers and agricultural workers and their social security contributions.

Here are the highlights;

ECVC firmly believes that the EU Unfair Trade Practice (UTP) directive (implemented in Spain) offers several pragmatic steps to guarantee fair prices for farmers’ products. It actually obliges each link of the food chain to cover its production costs, starting with producers. ECVC has demanded that this directive be taken up at the EU level in order to strengthen it.

Through the law, producers have the right to anonymously report anyone who purchases their produce at a price below their production costs, which they self-determine for their products on a case-by-case basis. It can result in hefty sanctions. During the first quarter of 2023, the Spanish government announced that 55 companies had been sanctioned, ECVC noted.

Another aspect of the directive is the Origin-Destination Price Index (Indice de precios origen-destino – IPOD) that is published every month to check the abuse of power and the imposition of prices below production costs by agro-industry and distributors. This index started off back in 2008 as an initiative of farmers and consumer organisations, and it illustrated the difference between prices paid to farmers and by consumers. This difference amounted to more than 500%, indicating that the greatest beneficiaries of market deregulation have been the strongest operators (generally large-scale distributors) and the most disadvantaged were peasant farmers and consumers.

ECVC also demanded that EU should ensure high level of public control and price transparency through instruments such as Food Information and Control Agency (FICA) that to carry out ex officio inspections of compliance and execution of contracts, on price abuses – and – The Chain Observatory, which is responsible for carrying out price and cost studies along the value chain of each agricultural and animal production.

“Prices by law must cover production costs in each link of the chain, starting with the farmer and the cost must include a decent income for farmers and all agricultural workers.”, noted the press release.

Among other proposals, ECVC also demanded that the selling at a loss be prohibited. Farmers must be paid in a maximum of 30 days when they sell a perishable product and 60 days if products are processed. Sanctions must be significant if the above points are not complied with. Price observatories at national and European levels must provide net margin levels by brand and manufacturer. There must be transparency on commercial negotiation conditions.

Finally, this law will not be completely effective without addressing international trade, removing the WTO from agriculture and stopping free trade agreements. A new trade framework based on food sovereignty should be implemented to enable the relocation of agricultural production and prevent national production from competing with imports that maintain low prices. Furthermore these free trade agreements deepen the climate and biodiversity crises and damage food systems in Europe and the rest of the world.

To read the detailed press note, click here.

The post Europe: ECVC puts forth concrete suggestions to guarantee fair prices to peasant farmers appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

Statement Issued by the Korean Peasant League and the Korean Peasant Women’s Association

27 February 2024:

The 13th Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organization (hereinafter WTO) has been underway in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (UAE), since yesterday (February 26th) for four days. The Korean Government has also dispatched a delegation led by Jung In-gyo, Director-General for Trade Negotiations at the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Resources, as the chief representative.

However, free trade has already come to an end. The spread of infectious diseases such as COVID-19 has closed borders, and conflicts erupting worldwide have shut the doors of trade. No longer do goods freely flow between countries. A prime example is food. With a decrease in production due to the climate crisis, the world is facing a new food crisis, leading traditional food-exporting countries to cease food exports. Indeed, the end of free trade is becoming a reality.

Yet, this WTO ministerial conference is said to focus on ‘WTO reform.’ Developed countries, still unable to abandon the illusion of free trade, are pushing for WTO reform until the last moment to exploit developing countries. In particular, the United States is leading the charge for a ‘fair and effective dispute settlement mechanism,’ claiming excessive protection for developing countries, striving to tip the scales further in their favor.

The situation is no different for agriculture. The Western world, including the United States, is pressuring developing countries to abolish domestic subsidies for agriculture, claiming they distort trade, and insisting that agricultural markets cannot be accessed without dismantling domestic subsidies. Strikingly, there was not a single mention of reducing domestic support (for corporate farms) in their own countries. Revealing blatant exploitation desires to completely destroy agriculture, already devastated by the consequences of free trade over the past 30 years.

The U.S.-led Western-centric world order is already over. The dominance of the dollar as the reserve currency is wavering, consecutive defeats in wars have shaken the dual pillars of U.S. hegemony in economic and military realms, and along with them, political power is crumbling. Meanwhile, the majority of countries exploited under the name of ‘developing countries’ are seizing this opportunity to rise as ’emerging nations.’

Free trade has already ended. The unequal world order created by free trade has also ended, and the essence of the WTO has long disappeared. The WTO ministerial conference, acting as the vanguard of Western imperialist nations trapped in past glory, should be immediately halted, and all nations should move towards a new world order of ‘reciprocity, equality, and sovereignty’ with dignity as sovereign nations.

The post Korean Peasants: Free trade is over! Stop the WTO ministerial conference destroying agriculture! appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

26 February 2024, Bagnolet | La Via Campesina’s Statement and Open call for Endorsement

The World Trade Organization will commence its 13th Ministerial Meeting in Abu Dhabi this week. The neoliberal globalization that it has enabled over the last three decades has systematically deregulated agricultural sectors across the world and dismantled minimum intervention prices, public stocks, supply management tools and import barriers. It has also propped up an industrial food system that has generated an unprecedented crisis around the world – both for the people and the planet.

The evidence of how this economic system has marginalized small-scale food producers is best exemplified in this data coming from the United States, the birthplace of this industrial food system. U.S. Department of Agriculture’s census in 2022, reveals that nearly 5 million farms have disappeared in the country in the past century. Among the primary reason of this disappearance has been the withdrawal of inflation-adjusted price support, beginning in 1953. Small farms needed to get bigger to make up for lower prices, or simply vanish.

This neoliberal economic model of agriculture is not confined to the US anymore. Through free trade agreements and the WTO’s highly problematic Agreement on Agriculture, it has been exported to other parts of the world. In every continent of the world, it has led to a violent appropriation of land, water, and territories, which dispossesses people, devastates the planet and its biodiversity, and generates an unprecedented climate crisis.

This expansion is also neo-colonial. Research points out that the triad of the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization has enabled a resource drain through structural adjustment programs and free trade agreements. Today, the Global North drains commodities worth $2.2 trillion per year, from the South. For perspective, that amount of money would be enough to end extreme poverty globally fifteen times over.

Despite mounting evidence, these institutions remain oblivious to the fact that inequality and unemployment levels have reached staggering levels worldwide. Hunger and malnutrition are now aggravated by internal strife and war within and among countries – again, the result of a scramble for the planet’s fast-dwindling resources. Food prices and food inflation in most countries are pushing more people into hunger. Farm input costs are rising, whereas peasant farmers are not fetching prices that allow them to stay afloat, increasing rural debt.

As a result, in just the last 12-15 months, protests have broken out in at least 65 countries where peasant farmers are demanding better prices for their produce, market regulation, price support, procurement and supply management programs.

Since the beginning of this year, peasant farmers in Europe have been staging mass mobilizations demanding an end to this ‘free trade regime’ that has failed the people and propped up more billionaires. At the time of preparing this statement, Indian peasant farmers who led a massive agitation for 13 months in 2020 are once again hitting the streets – demanding better prices for their produce. In Mexico, Sri Lanka, Argentina, Thailand, Costa Rica, Cameroon, Korea, Kenya, Benin, and several other countries, people are revolting against a system that has impoverished the majority while helping a select few prosper.

It is also important to state here that the climate crisis, a byproduct of this model of economic growth, is also a crisis of inequalities. If wealth were distributed more equally, all people could live in dignity without having to overuse the earth’s resources. Instead, WTO rules are increasing the wealth and power of a little oligarchy (in the North and South) linked to TNCs against the 99% of the world’s peoples, putting the entire humanity in danger.

The regime of free trade agreements – negotiated bilaterally, regionally, or through the WTO – also limits governments in the Global South and North, even those who are willing, to implement any form of domestic welfare support for their people. Citing WTO rules and legal clauses in countless other free trade agreements, the guardians of industrial agriculture (in the North and South) interfere and block such measures. They consider domestic support, market regulation, and public procurement programs as trade-distorting and limiting market access to agribusiness corporations – thus calling a violation of the ‘rules-based order’. Whose rules? Rules for whom? This is not a rules-based order anymore but a might-based order – where those immersed in financial capital decide for the rest of the world.

But things are changing. WTO rules – once a powerful constraint on development policy space – are no longer legally enforceable, as the appellate body for dispute settlement remains in limbo. But this state of limbo has also allowed countries to use it to their advantage to bring in development policies that allow them to cater to the needs of their people first.

The dysfunctionality of the WTO in arriving at a permanent solution on public food stocks or special safeguard mechanisms is now threatening it into irrelevance. We welcome this dysfunctionality! It is the inevitable end that awaits this rigged system. The WTO and the current system of global trade must come to an urgent halt. And an alternative must emerge.

An alternative is coming, join us!

La Via Campesina has embarked on the mammoth task of building a global framework for trade between countries, built on the principles of food sovereignty, solidarity, cooperation, and internationalism, where land, water, seeds, and territories are not mere commodities.

We are building a framework that would help us overcome the social and ecological crises confronting the world today. One in which, the right for each country to determine their own agricultural and food policies and protect and support its local food system through measures of market regulation (such as minimum support prices, public stocks, supply management, or minimum entry prices), in particular in order to stabilize agricultural prices over the costs of production and to fight against speculation.

One that ensures that no country be excluded against its will from international trade in agricultural commodities, food, and agricultural inputs. One that guarantees that the international trade in agricultural inputs must be regulated in order to reduce countries’ dependence on these inputs and to move towards peasant agroecology. One where international trade is not subject to geopolitical pressures. The framework would ensure that dumping and export subsidies for agricultural and food products are prohibited.

One that would guarantee that the rules of international trade are based on the highest standards of human rights, such as the right to food, UNDROP and UNDRIP, and ILO rules for the respect of workers’ rights. It would defend the rights of agricultural workers, fisherfolk, pastoralists, indigenous peoples, migrant workers, and other food system workers and support the establishment of living wage programs for urban and rural workers that will be indexed to inflation. It must ensure that food may never be used as a weapon of war in international conflicts.

It is a framework that should guarantee all this and more, making our societies more equitable and just. It must become the guideline against which all the existing and new free trade agreements are referenced against. All those agreements, existing and new, that fail to comply would evidently be failing the people – and hence must be suspended.

La Via Campesina is calling all our members, allied social movements, civil society organizations, and friends in academia and policy spaces – including those in governments – to join us in this effort of building a framework that can help build a fair system of trade, rooted in principles of food sovereignty and social justice.

As the WTO commences its 13th Ministerial Meeting with the hope of saving itself from irrelevance, we insist that all governments frustrated by its dysfunctionality join us in building an alternative. We will build this framework through patient consultations and advocacy with all our communities. This journey must begin now with no time to waste to ensure the future security and enjoyment of life for humanity.

Sign up to the idea of building an alternative. Add your details here

Faced with the Global Crises, We Build Food Sovereignty, to ensure a future for humanity!

WTO out of Agriculture! A new trade framework NOW!

#EndWTO #FoodSovereigntyNOW #MC13

The post Free Trade Agreements are Failed Trade Agreements. An alternative is now urgent and necessary appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

The Indian coordination committee of farmers’ movements (ICCFM) has written a letter to the Indian commerce minister and other officials, reiterating their support for a permanent solution to the public stockholding issue at the WTO.

The 13th Ministerial Meeting of the WTO is set to commence on February 26th, and India has been among the leading advocates on vital issues of domestic support and Public Stock Holding (PSH) programs that developing countries and least developed countries want to undertake.

“For nearly 30 years now, the WTO has always challenged the efforts to provide remunerative prices to farmers. Due to the highly unfair trade rules established by this institution, Indian small-scale farmers have never received a fair price for their produce. Consequently, rural India is now grappling with a debt crisis that has claimed the lives of more than 350,000 farmers in 30 years. The new-age trade agreements being pushed bilaterally between India and other countries appear to replicate the highly problematic policies of the WTO, such as low tariffs/tariff elimination resulting in increasing import dependency, incentivization of large-scale monoculture farms, increasing mechanization and digitalization, and promoting the use of chemical inputs. Some of these agreements, whether bilateral or multilateral, are also paving the way for deregulation of some of India’s policies related to GMOs, farmers’ seeds, and more. Despite India’s agriculture being predominantly small-scale, most policies are designed to facilitate the corporatization of the agricultural sector,” the letter reads.

ICCFM is a coalition of peasant organizations from the states of Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Maharashtra.

They note that while the 2013 Bali Ministerial decision offered a temporary “peace clause” allowing developing countries to exceed WTO-prescribed agriculture subsidy limits, India’s use of this peace clause has faced harsh questioning at the WTO. Attempts by agricultural exporting countries to first allow only an onerous peace clause and then challenge the application of the peace clause highlight the need for a permanent solution.

The coalition has also asked the government to defend all the domestic support programs. They have warned [the WTO] against any attempts to curtail the government’s ability to provide essential domestic subsidies to farmers.

“These crucial subsidies, including input subsidies which are given as a policy tool for supporting agricultural development under special and differential treatment and the de minimis allowances which include Minimum Support Prices (MSPs) and Fair and Remunerative Price (FRP), ensure our survival and ability to invest in seeds, fertilizers, and other inputs. Without them, many farmers will be pushed into further poverty and despair,” the letter reads.

The letter has also questioned the push within the WTO on standards related to ‘sustainability’ in agriculture.

The letter states, “Discussions at MC 13 must also focus on promoting ecological agricultural practices and ensuring the livelihoods of small and marginal farmers which go hand in hand. Indian farmers produce sustainably, and we do not need to be told by developed countries how to pursue sustainable agriculture. We believe they are bringing in sustainability related language in the WTO in order to protect their commercial interests by imposing harsh standards on us. This will threaten our livelihoods and domestic agricultural development by restricting the export of our agroecological produce. We urge you to advocate for policies that uphold our food sovereignty and support agroecology, crop diversification, and fair and guaranteed prices for our produce.”

India is currently witnessing a resurgence of the farmers’ protest that caught global attention in 2020 and 2021. On February 26th, the protesting farmers have vowed to observe “Quit WTO day” to highlight the devastating impact that neoliberal policies have had on the country’s agricultural sector over the past 30 years.

ICCFM-Letter-to-GOI-on-WTO-MC13Download

Cover Image: KRRS. (Representative image from 2021. Women from the Karnataka State Farmers’ Association staging a demonstration. )

The post “Defend peasant interests at MC 13,” Indian peasant farmers write to their Ministry, to mark ‘Quit WTO Day’ on February 26th appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

ECVC calls its members to join FUGEA, Boerenforum and MAP, its member organisations in Belgium, in their call to action to take to the streets of Brussels once more from 11am on 26 February at Schuman roundabout.

ECVC is calling on its members to come to Brussels on 26 February to demand real progress from policy makers around the demands of small- and medium-scale farmers during the next agricultural Council of Ministers meeting. The mobilisation, organised by FUGEA and supported by Boerenforum and MAP, will also mobilise a wide array of civil society allies. Together, we will look to secure concrete measures and protection for farmers in the shape of:

• Ending free trade agreements and unfair competition, starting with the definitive end of EU-Mercosur agreement negotiations.
• Regulating markets and making the directive on Unfair Trading Practices mandatory, using the Spanish food chain law as a positive example, in order to guarantee fair and stable prices that cover production costs and the work of farmers, and are protected from speculation.
• Ensuring a sufficient budget and an equitable distribution of CAP aid to facilitate a fair transition towards agroecology and sustainable practices!
• Reducing the administrative burden for farmers.
• Stopping the deregulation of GMOs/new genomic techniques.

In response, to the last farmer mobilisations, the Commission moved to put a stop to measures and legislation aimed at protecting the environment and biodiversity. EU policy makers have again failed to listen to the majority voices of farmers, instead choosing to put forward proposals designed to appease the interests of large industrial agri-business actors.

Farmers’ current realities are the result of several decades of neo-liberal policies that have deepened social inequalities and undermined the environment. The Commission must change its approach and move away from liberal dogmas if it wants to ensure a future for the rapidly shrinking number of farms and farmers who feed European populations.

From 26 to 29 February, the 13th WTO Ministerial Conference will also be held in Abu Dhabi. The WTO bears immense responsibility for the current social and environmental crises. At a time when farmers’ mobilisations are multiplying all over Europe, as well as in India, Africa and Latin America, it is time to bring an end to the WTO and build a new trade framework based on food sovereignty and international solidarity.

It is essential that policy makers recognise what is at stake and stop ignoring the alternative solutions that are being put forward by small-scale farmers. ECVC and its member organisations will continue to take to the streets to ensure policymakers listen to the structural, concrete and coherent solutions we have to offer to reduce the glaring injustices of the current economic system.

The post 26 February, Brussels: ECVC issues a call to mobilize against free trade agreements appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

According to reports from the Korean Peasant Leagues’ news outlet, IKP News, peasant opposition to tariff reductions is growing in South Korea. The report highlights the influx of imported agricultural products, totaling tens of thousands of tons over the past two years due to lower tariffs. Initially intended as short-term remedies, these tariff reductions have quickly become entrenched, effectively operating as a permanent supply policy. Moreover, even imported fruits, which face no direct domestic competition, have witnessed significant tariff reductions under the guise of price stabilization.

As the World Trade Organization (WTO) prepares for its 13th Ministerial Meeting in Abu Dhabi next week, scrutiny of tariff reduction measures outlined in the Agreement on Agriculture intensifies. These measures, often employed to improve market access for transnational businesses, are increasingly under the microscope for their impact on food sovereignty and rural economies. Data from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reveals that Korea’s grain self-sufficiency rate dipped to 19.3 percent in 2020, marking the first time it fell below the 20-percent threshold. Contrastingly, this rate stood at 30.9 percent in 2000, indicating a significant shift towards grain imports, which now constitute 80 percent of domestic consumption.

Concerns are mounting over the decline of traditional fruit markets, which relied on quarantine measures, in the face of the surge in imported agricultural products. The adverse effects of the government’s misaligned agricultural policies are expected to disproportionately impact domestically produced agricultural and livestock goods and the farmers who cultivate them. With media attention amplifying these concerns, there is growing anxiety that the Yoon Suk-yeol administration’s singular focus on price stability, the primary rationale behind tariff reductions, could precipitate agricultural disintegration and rural collapse.

Peasant movements accuse the government and politicians of hesitating to embrace and disseminate the concept of food sovereignty, with instances of ambiguity and misuse of terminologies being widespread. The surprising mention of strengthening food sovereignty by then-presidential candidate Yoon Suk-yeol in 2022 quickly unraveled upon closer inspection. Notably, the Grain Management Law amendment, despite its uncertain prospects, was vetoed by the government, bypassing the expansion of domestically produced non-glutinous rice and soybeans.

In April 2023, a report by IKP News highlighted the Korean peasant movements’ denunciation of the government’s rejection to amend the Grain Management Act, warning of dire consequences for the country’s food sovereignty and rice farmers’ livelihoods. President Yoon Suk-yeol exercised his presidential veto for the first time in April 2023 to reject a bill aimed at revising the Grain Management Act, which mandated the government to purchase excess rice yields.

The proposed amendments, supported by the opposition party and Korean peasant movements, aimed to introduce minimum measures to secure food sovereignty and stabilize farm management in the country. These included establishing a legal basis for the temporary implementation of the paddy field crop cultivation support program to address rice supply fluctuations proactively. Peasant movements advocate for measures such as mandatory market isolation, a production adjustment system, and expanded paddy field crop cultivation to stabilize rice farmers’ management, enhance food self-sufficiency, and ensure food security. Proponents argue that these measures would prevent instances of steep rice price crashes, such as the one experienced in 2021, from recurring.

Peasant movements stress that the stable production of rice, the nation’s staple food, holds invaluable importance, and it is the government’s responsibility to ensure its stable production through legal and institutional mechanisms. They emphasize the need to establish institutional mechanisms to ensure stable production of the nation’s staple food, including a minimum guaranteed price for rice production, as essential preparations for food crises.

This article has been prepared with inputs from reports by Han Woojoon, Kim Suna and Won Jaejeong for IKP News (한국농정신문).

The post Korea: Peasant movements denounce tariff reductions, call for measures to enhance Food Sovereignty appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

As the 13th Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organization (WTO) is scheduled to commence on February 26th, peasant movements worldwide are highlighting how free trade deals and the ongoing debt crises in various countries pose a significant threat to people’s ability to control their own food production. In this audio excerpt, David Otieno from the Kenyan Peasants’ League, speaking at a seminar on Debt Crises, underscores this link by referencing the several Free Trade Agreements, which now permit cheap imports of pesticides, eggs and sugar.

In January 2024, the KPL also became part of the opposition against the EU-Kenya Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA). By signing a letter alongside other members of civil society addressed to European Parliamentarians, the Kenyan Peasant League endorsed the viewpoint that utilizing agricultural resources like land and water primarily for export purposes impedes Kenya’s ability to prioritize agriculture that allows for reducing its reliance on imports such as grain.

“Firstly, the EPA with the East African Community, on which the EU-Kenya agreement builds, failed to be ratified in 2016, with EAC member states recognizing that local industries would not be able to withstand competitive pressures from EU firms, locking the region even further in its role of provider of low-value-added primary commodities. It was calculated that the welfare in the EAC would decrease while the EU would register a welfare gain of $212 million” the letter noted.

It also elaborated how, considering Kenya is part of the customs union of the EAC -which ensures free flow of goods between the countries-, the enforcement of the agreement would lead to a flow on European goods to all EAC countries through Kenya, given the difficulty to enforce rules of origin and the safeguards that the partners have introduced into the text.

For instance, Cote D’Ivoire and Ghana implemented an interim EPA with the EU, facilitating the influx of milk powder into these countries. Consequently, the capacity of countries like Burkina Faso, Nigeria, and Senegal—despite not signing an EPA but being in a customs union with Cote D’Ivoire and Ghana—to meet their milk consumption needs through domestic production has decreased significantly over the past two decades. Specifically, it declined from 80% to 69% for Burkina Faso, from 41% to 21% for Nigeria, and from 33% to 21% for Senegal. The competitive pressure stemming from cheaper milk powder, which enters these countries via processed goods, undermines their ability to ensure food security.

Read the full text of the letter here.

We plan a series of actions on Week of Mobilization Against @wto including daily online actions, webinar on 27 Feb and Street Actions in 10 different areas across five Counties in Kenya #DownDownWTO @via_campesina @1000currents @GRAIN_org @GMWatch @GlobalAktion @FundAgroecology pic.twitter.com/9ERzG6yNJF

— Kenyan Peasants League (@PeasantsLeague) February 24, 2024

The post Debt Crisis and Free Trade Agreements endanger Kenya’s food sovereignty: Kenyan Peasants League appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

In a press release issued by the Movement for Land and Agricultural Reforms (MONLAR) in Sri Lanka on 20 February 2024, it has called upon the national government to ensure guaranteed prices, strengthen the Paddy Marketing Board, and improve storage facilities. This is particularly relevant in the context of the 13th Ministerial Meeting of the World Trade Organization, set to begin in Abu Dhabi next week, where such domestic support measures by developing countries are often attacked by developed countries and agricultural-exporting nations.

Here is the full text of the press release:

Is there a commitment by the United Nations, including the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, and various governments to safeguard the interests of small-scale farmers, food producers, and consumers?

The Regional Conference for Asia and the Pacific (APRC), hosted by the Food and Agriculture Organization, is currently underway in Colombo from February 19 to 22. Participants include policymakers, government officials, and representatives from civil society organizations.

Across the globe, from France and Belgium to India, hundreds of thousands of farmers are currently advocating for their rights on the streets. The challenging economic landscape, marked by soaring input costs and the inability to secure fair prices for their products, has led to a distressing rise in farmer suicides. Small-scale farmers face the threat of displacement from their lands as large agri-companies, supported by governments, assert dominance over vital resources like water, pastureland, beaches, lagoons, and forests. The adverse effects of climate change, including escalating floods, typhoons, and desertification, have compelled millions to abandon their homes.

Additionally, the repercussions of bilateral and multilateral Free Trade Agreements (FTAs), stemming from World Trade Organization (WTO) recommendations, are pushing small-scale farmers and food producers out of the market. The inherent uncertainties associated with agriculture are prompting the younger generation to veer away from this profession.

The Sri Lankan government is currently hosting the 37th Session of the Regional Conference for Asia and the Pacific (APRC), yet it appears to be unaware of the challenges faced by local farmers.

As the Maha harvesting season unfolds, Sri Lankan farmers are urging the government to establish a guaranteed price for their produce and strengthen the role of the state-owned Paddy Marketing Board. Their demands also include a plea for the cessation of subsidies to large-scale rice millers, viewed as a monopoly exploiting the farmers.

Furthermore, these farmers are calling on the government to address longstanding issues, such as the renovation of state-owned paddy storage facilities. Despite being persistent demands over decades, successive governments have yet to address these concerns raised by Sri Lankan farmers.

The government is distributing freehold land titles to farmers and making amendments to land laws, aiming to establish a new land market within the country. However, alongside these initiatives which allow farmers to use their lands as collateral, there are many other actions being taken that threaten the well-being and livelihoods of small-scale farmers and food producers.

Despite facing an economic crisis, the government has allocated substantial funds for importing food items with low nutritional value, all the while neglecting the legitimate concerns raised by farmers within the country. Moreover, the government lacks the capacity to regulate prices, with successive administrations endorsing the dismantling of established mechanisms designed for price control. As a consequence, the average Sri Lankan consumer is now confronted with the challenge of accessing both nutritious and affordable food. Alarming statistics from the World Food Program (WFP) indicate that 6.3 million Sri Lankans are currently grappling with food insecurity, urgently requiring humanitarian assistance. The WFP also notes that 5.3 million Sri Lankans are forced to skip meals, a trend that poses a significant setback to the strides previously made in human development.

In 2018, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) released a publication titled ‘Leaving no one behind: How Blue Growth can benefit women, youth, indigenous groups, and migrants.’ This document emphasizes the goal of promoting the sustainable development of aquatic resources to benefit communities dependent on these resources for their livelihoods and food security. However, it appears that the FAO is advocating for certain policies, such as agricultural modernization, commercialization, Private Public Partnerships for food production, digitization, and the promotion of one country, one crop. These initiatives tend to overlook the concerns and needs of rural farmers, small-scale fishermen, milch farmers, and other small-scale food producers.

As farmers, we seek clarity on how the aforementioned policies are positively impacting our well-being. The implementation of these policies often requires a level of harshness that raises questions about the Food and Agriculture Organization’s (FAO) commitment to upholding human rights, as outlined in the UN declaration. The United Nations should ideally function as a platform for mitigating and preventing climate change. However, certain UN institutions are now endorsing the financialization of climate change.

Additionally, we strongly oppose the push for agriculture modernization and private sector investments in agriculture, as these initiatives appear to primarily benefit the corrupt elite rather than providing tangible advantages for farmers and consumers. Fundamentally, we reject false solutions that fail to tackle the underlying issues confronting food producers. Our demand is for a transformation of agriculture towards agroecology, an approach that addresses global warming, upholds the dignity of all communities, and fosters food sovereignty. We call upon the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) to play a proactive role in encouraging nations worldwide to endorse and ratify the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas, a declaration approved by the United Nations Human Rights Council.

Movement for Land and Agricultural Reform 20 February 2024

Cover Image: Representative image short by Peter van der Sluijs and sourced from Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository.

The post “FAO must defend the interests of small-scale food producers. Guaranteed prices for our produce!” MONLAR, Srilanka appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

By Steve Ongerth - From the book, Redwood Uprising: Book 1

Download a free PDF version of this chapter.

Now when the timber barons heard the news they geared up for the fight,
And we laughed away the death threats and we cried to sleep each night,
And the media walked right into our homes,
As if they really were one of our own.
Now Goodman, Schwerner, and Chaney left this little racist town,
Drove down that Mississippi highway to the place they would bed down,
But in the mirror they could see the Sheriff’s light,
No, they never did make it home that night.

—lyrics excerpted from Ghosts of Mississippi, by Darryl Cherney, 2004[1]

Now Judi Bari is an Earth First! organizer,
The California Redwoods are her home,
She called for Redwood Summer,
Where the owl and the black bear roam;
Charlie Hurwitz he runs Maxxam out of Houston,
Harry Merlo runs L-P from Portland town,
They’re the men they call ‘King Timber’,
They know how to cut you down;
And Shep Tucker spewed their hatred,
As Candy Boak laid out their scam,
John Campbell called for violence,
It was no secret what they planned…

—lyrics excerpted from Who Bombed Judi Bari?, by Darryl Cherney, 1990[2]

Judi Bari didn’t have time to be frightened. Even though the organizers of the coming season of protests shortened the name “Mississippi Summer of the California Redwoods” simply to “Redwood Summer,” the situation—she thought—was starting to more and more resemble the violent and threatening conditions of the original Mississippi Freedom Summer anyway.

While the Public Interest and Environmental Law Conference was in progress in Oregon, the representatives of Corporate Timber on California’s North Coast were in the process of polishing their image. Louisiana Pacific, Pacific Lumber, and Simpson through the auspices of yet another front group known as the “North Coast Forest Industry” (NCFI)—which had existed quietly for twelve years—created a series of advertisements promoting themselves as “good neighbors”, “economically beneficial to the local economies” of Humboldt and Mendocino Counties, and “careful stewards” of the region’s forests. The campaign included radio spots and full page ads in the region’s local and corporate newspapers. The NCFI didn’t merely limit itself to representatives from the three corporations and the local gyppo firms, however. It opened up its membership to other local businesses, ostensibly because they depended upon the timber economy for their own viability, but more likely because the NCFI also functioned like the “good citizens’ leagues” of old ensuring loyalty to the dominant power. One such business owner speaking approvingly of the effort declared, “The only way that the timber industry makes the newspaper is if somebody is sitting in one of their trees or chained to the back of one of their logging trucks.”[3]

The NCFI campaign was ironic, given the fact that the north coast timber corporations had been producing such ads already for years, particularly in the Eureka Times-Standard, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, Ukiah Daily Journal, and (naturally) the Humboldt Beacon and Fortuna Advance. In fact, the bias was so blatant, that even a few readers of the last publication had already been incensed enough to accuse the editor of “shameless corporate bootlicking”.[4] The effort nevertheless brought many local employers into the fold, and following the ads, the NCFI’s membership increased by 30 to 40 members from its original membership of barely one dozen.[5]

Two days after the NCFI announced its campaign, the Santa Rosa Press Democrat’s, Ukiah bureau chief and head timber reporter, Mike Geniella, wrote a fairly extensive and article about the Mississippi Summer of the California Redwoods, or “Redwood Summer” as it was now being called. One week previously, Bari, Cherney, and other North Coast Earth First!ers had made their presentation to the Student Environmental Action Coalition (SEAC) who had held a conference in Sacramento. The SEAC organizers had been so inspired that they agreed to include the Redwood Summer organizing call out in their newsletter. “They (sent it) to thousands of colleges in the United States”, commented Betty Ball.[6] Over the course of the next two weeks, the story made national press wires, and thousands of people suddenly began showing interest in what was happening behind the so-called “Redwood Curtain”.[7] The Timber Association of California, a supporter of the NCFI was not pleased. Speaking on their behalf, Kevin Eckery declared, “(it) trivializes the real sacrifices made in Mississippi as part of the Civil Rights movement. The situation (here) doesn’t hardly seem to be the same.”[8] He would soon be proven very wrong, and in a sense, he was wrong from the get-go. Candy Boak continued to call Judi Bari and let her adversary know that she was still being watched, which was an ominous—even threatening—gesture. This would only be the start of things to come.[9]

* * * * *

By all appearances, however, things were going relatively auspiciously for Earth First! – IWW Local #1 in the middle of March. At the Redwood Region Logging Conference in Ukiah, which took place two weeks after the Oregon Public Interest Environmental Law Conference (PIELC), they finally had their opportunity to demonstrate against one of the two remaining Louisiana-Pacific’s feller-bunchers being used by Okerstrom Logging. The second “Killa Godzilla” was to be proudly displayed on the grounds of the event, and those that had planned the demonstration against the first feller-buncher were not going to let this opportunity go to waste.

The conference itself was the usual carnival-like display of logging equipment and technology. Thousands of people, including several local school classes attended during the event’s three-day stretch. Bosco, Keene, and Hauser all attended and again urged timber industry leaders to accept the “Timber Pact” reached with Hurwitz and Merlo. Shortly after the conference, the three lawmakers conducted an “intense and wide ranging” meeting with a group of environmentalists, most of whom were litigants in lawsuits against Maxxam, in Santa Rosa to try and urge them to support the “Timber Pact” also.[10]

The organizers of the conference expected the Earth First!ers to be coming, and so they ensured that the security at the event, including around the feller buncher, was tight, but on March 17, 1990, the Earth First!ers were able to carry out their plans anyway. A group of “hippie-looking” Earth First!ers, including Bari and Cherney, created a diversion at the base of the machine, singing songs like Where are We Gonna Work When the Trees are Gone and Tonka Toys.[11] Meanwhile, two loggers, Brent Waggie and Joe Keating[12] climbed up onto the top of the machine and hung a banner, which read, “THIS THING KILLS JOBS & FORESTS: Earth First!”. Waggie, a logger from Springerville, California, said, “This feller-buncher will put my family out of work. We can’t afford $700,000 machines, and my family is set up for saw logs, not pecker poles.”[13] The two loggers were eventually arrested and charged with trespassing.[14]

Two weeks later, this feller buncher also caught fire, while engaged in logging operations south of Chamberlain Creek in the Jackson State Demonstration Forest. The Mendocino County Sheriff’s Office conducted investigations which revealed that the fire started accidentally at about 2:20 PM on April 4, 1990, due to misuse. Okerstrom had been using it to log L-P property near Jackson State Forest west of Willits when it ignited and its internal fire suppression systems failed. The sheriff’s office had been asked to investigate specifically because of the growing tensions over Redwood Summer.[15] “Either this thing is a $700,000 lemon, or there are some heroic people out there in the woods,” opined Judi Bari.[16] When asked if she was responsible, Bari declared, “It wasn’t me; I was home in bed with five witnesses.”[17] She reiterated, again, that she did not know or want to know who was engaged in equipment sabotage (if that had indeed been what had happened, which it later was discovered, was not), stating, “Our approach in this area is public awareness…I neither engage in sabotage myself or want to hear about it…if it had been sabotaged, it probably would have been by loggers.”[18]

Bari added, however, that she was not saddened by the second behemoth’s demise, nor were any loggers likely to oppose the destruction of the job killing “fascist robot.” Walter Smith confirmed the appropriateness of the description, by noting that it not only replaced fallers, but choker setters also, and that the feller buncher could double production with half of the crew.[19] At least one reader of the Willits News was puzzled by the framing of the incident which, from the headline, suggested that the machine had been sabotaged by Earth First! That it wasn’t, and that this was the substance of the article, was not evident in the headline.[20] Once again, careless (or deliberately misleading) reporting had imparted sinister motives to Earth First! - IWW Local #1 that didn’t exist.

* * * * *

That’s not to suggest that Earth First!ers didn’t occasionally choose their words poorly. In early March, Darryl Cherney inadvertently served up the ultimate fat pitch to Earth First!’s detractors. While being interviewed by Mike Wallace on 60 Minutes, Cherney flippantly stated, “If I had a fatal disease I would definitely strap a body bomb to myself and blow up the Glen Canyon Dam or the Maxxam building at night after everyone had gone home.” An estimated 10 million viewers witnessed Darryl’s words—at least those not in italics, which (had they been broadcast) might have lessened the seriousness of his statement. That 60 Minutes saw fit to exclude the last part was something that Cherney should have anticipated, and reportedly he was chewed out soundly by everyone in Earth First! for his careless choice of words. According to Judi Bari, Cherney would never even get close to a bomb. He had never even lit a firecracker (in fact, he was afraid of them).[21]

Indeed, the activist may have been set up. Cherney maintained that the CBS producer who interviewed him said that his initial, far more mild, response was too bland and asked for something “more punchy”.[22] Still these words had their impact, and it provided fodder to political reactionaries and apologists for corporate timber who never tired of describing Earth First! as “terrorists”.[23] It also gave Earth First! a black eye politically in the eyes of many 60 Minutes viewers nationwide. One even went as far to suggest that the tree Cherney’s guitar came from should have been saved and the guy who played it (Cherney) should have been cut down.[24] As it was, no Earth First!er was likely to do this. Dave Foreman was quite clear in his stance on the matter, stating, “I’ve always discouraged the use of explosives and guns…That’s in an entirely different realm than pulling up survey stakes.” [25] Even Ecodefense had a very short entry on the use of explosives. It simply stated: “Explosives should…usually be avoided.” [26] Furthermore, in too many places to count, Ecodefense admonishes the would-be monkeywrencher to “never hurt anyone” and to “respect all life” (including human life). [27]

Darryl Cherney did surrender to authorities at the Humboldt County Jail in Eureka on March 20, 1990 to begin a ten day jail sentence, along with fellow Earth First!er and musician George Shook. The two had pled no contest “(to) the heinous crime of tree sitting,” the previous year, after Pacific Lumber reactivated an old lawsuit against them.[28] Cherney and Shook described themselves as “prisoners of war in the fight to save the redwoods.”[29] Before the two began their internment, approximately 40 protesters rallied on the sidewalk in downtown Eureka at the jail and courthouse. Demonstrating the class bias of the justice system, Cherney read from a computer printout—based on the LSA Report—all of the convictions brought by the CDF against those that broke environmental laws over the previous two years. Most of their crimes included serious crimes against nature, such as clearcutting in riparian protection zones or logging without even filing a THP at all! In every instance, the perpetrators had their jail sentences and most of their fines suspended. Humboldt County DA, Terry farmer, was singled out in particular for his pro-corporate bias, as demonstrators shouted “Jail Hurwitz!” Bari, Cherney, and Shook led the crowd in protest songs, including Jerry Leiber’s and Mike Stoller’s classic Riot in Cell Black Nine and Oh Freedom (complete with Earth First! specific lyrics). A group of determined Earth First!ers attempted to surround Cherney and Shook, but the police twisted the would be saviors’ arms behind their backs thus preventing the tiny group from preventing the jailing of the activists.[30]

Mysteriously, Cherney and Shook only served five days of their ten day sentence. With no advance warning, the Humboldt County sheriffs released the pair at about 4:00 AM on the cold, foggy morning of Sunday, March 25. Cherney and Shook contacted their designated jail support person who did not answer. Not knowing what else to do, they prepared to hitchhike back to Arcata, six miles to the north. Just then, a woman called Darryl’s name from a nearby vehicle. It was Candy Boak. Feigning affability, Boak announced that she and her husband John lived nearby, that she couldn’t sleep, and that she’d come to town to buy a Sunday paper from a local minimarket. Then, completely contrary to her past behavior, she offered the pair breakfast and a ride to Arcata. Having few other options, Cherney and Shook obliged and climbed into Boak’s minivan. At breakfast, Boak—still pretending to be seeking a temporary truce—asked the two a large number of questions about Redwood Summer, including logistics and ideology. Though careful not to reveal any sensitive information, Cherney and Shook answered her. After all, Earth First! was planning to be aboveboard on the summer campaign anyway, so there was little sense in hiding anything. Boak then drove the two back to Arcata before returning home.[31]

Upon hearing of Cherney’s experience, Judi Bari was incensed. She was already very angry about his having mouthed off on national television. Now she had to question his sanity entirely. Had it even occurred to him that it was the least bit odd that the Humboldt County sheriffs—who had absolutely no love for Earth First!—had let them go after only serving half their sentence? Did it not seem just a bit too convenient that Candy Boak was the first person that Cherney and Shook encountered upon their release? Was it just possible that Boak had maybe, just maybe, been tipped off about their discharge? Was it not even remotely suspicious that Candy Boak who had made it a matter of pride to “monkeywrench the monkeywrenchers” had probed the pair for the entire Redwood Summer playbook? He may as well have called Charles Hurwitz and Harry Merlo and told them everything. Cherney was taken aback and told Bari that she was paranoid. This annoyed Bari even more. As a woman, she was far too used to her opinions being discounted by her male comrades. After Candy Boak called Bari again and informed the latter that she had revealed all of the plans Darryl had shared with her to her allies in Mother’s Watch and WECARE, Bari ruefully informed Cherney in no uncertain terms, “I told you so!”[32]

Relationships between activists are almost always tenuous and difficult due to the external pressures of public life that inevitably invade the private and personal realm. The strain of a rapidly increasing workload demanded by the upcoming Redwood Summer combined with the brewing backlash in all of its manifestations (Candy Boak being but one of them) was taking its toll on the couple and they were fighting often to the point which Bari doubted aloud that the two had a future as such. This drove Cherney nuts, but there was little that could be done about it.[33]

* * * * *

Publically at least, however, the two presented a united front out of necessity. Response to the call for Redwood Summer from potential supporters had been overwhelmingly positive and larger than anyone had expected. Betty Ball reported, “We’ve been inundated with calls from colleges and community activists all over the United States.”[34] Darryl Cherney described similar experiences, saying:

“Rapidly, lots of people became interested and the media started publishing reports about our plans, before we’d even finalized them…

“We also called a meeting in Ukiah that attracted a lot folks, right around the same time. We were attracting 60 to 70 people per meeting. Media was calling. You knew it was obvious that this was an idea whose time had come. There was almost no stopping it from the very beginning.”[35]

“It’s going to be a long hot summer,” stated Judi Bari; “the eyes of the nation will be watching us.”[36] Mike Roselle added, “Redwood Summer promises to be the biggest national mobilization of Earth First! activists ever,” and this was coming on the heels of over one-hundred direct action type demonstrations that Earth First! and/or the IWW had organized in Humboldt, Mendocino, Sonoma, and Marin Counties thus far. “The destruction wrought by the timber industry is unknown to most Americans,” declared Darryl Cherney. He further added:

“Besides the wholesale slaughter of thousand year old trees, they leave toxic dumps from their preservatives and eroded soil that can barely support new growth. Reduced precipitation, ruined rivers, treeless hillsides and a decimated salmon population is the legacy the timber industry has left us. The multitude of forest fires we’ve been getting are due to the smaller, more vulnerable trees that have grown back, as well as from malfunctioning logging equipment. They’ve devastated small communities with their boom and bust logging, and when they’ve stripped the land bare, they’ll often sell to a developer for tract housing and condos.”[37]

Redwood Summer’s organizers agreed that they needed to convey unequivocally that they were going to remain steadfastly nonviolent, no matter what dangers or threats they faced. Taking a page out of the annals of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), they adopted the following code:

“All demonstrators will follow a strict nonviolence code, including the following provisions:

·We will use no violence, verbal or physical, towards any person

·We will carry no weapons

·We will not damage any property.

“Additionally, please do not bring dogs, weapons, drugs, and alcohol.

“If you don’t want to be nonviolent, please don’t come to Redwood Summer. Tensions are extremely high here, as people’s jobs and lifestyles are being destroyed along with the forest. Although our actions are not directed against the timber workers, it is often easier for them to blame the protestors than to blame the giant corporations who are actually at fault. Last year there were several instances of violence against protestors, and the only way we can prevent a repeat of the attacks is to stand by the nonviolence code.

“This is not a picnic. It is a life-and-death struggle. But our actions have always been high-spirited and fun, and by our numbers and nonviolence we can succeed. Your coming here could make the difference we need to prevent the destruction of one of the most magnificent species on earth.”[38]

Greg King emphasized that all participants would be required to take a nonviolence training which addressed most of the alleged concerns raised by Don Nelson in his hysterical letter accusing the organizers of Redwood Summer of endangering students’ and workers’ safety. “Any participant not in full agreement with non-violence as the principle concern during the actions will not take part in Redwood Summer.” The incoming “freedom riders” for the forests would be required to check in at hospitality houses and then dispatched to campsites or lodgings. Sonoma County Earth First!er and IWW organizer Pam Davis stated, “We’ve had an incredible response from people opening their doors and their land, from small office spaces to 320 acre forests…there’s still a need for more lodgings and land, however, and we’re putting out the call from Santa Rosa to Crescent City.”[39]

Redwood Summer drew upon the support of locals as much as it intended to bring in support from the outside. Two of these local organizers included Anna Marie Stenberg’s son, Zack Stenz, and Supervisor Liz Henry’s daughter, Lisa. Lisa Henry recalls how she became involved in the efforts:

“It started in February…when Judi came over to Anna Marie Stenberg’s house and talked about Redwood Summer. I got a phone call on my answering machine. Zack (Stenz) said, ‘You’ve got to come over. Redwood Summer is going to be really big and we have to be in on it. Come meet Judi Bari’…

So I went over to Anna Marie’s and I met Judi Bari. Later Judi said to me she liked me from the minute we met, and all I had said to her was[brightly] , ‘Hi!’

“The ironic thing was that I had lived in this county for seventeen years (my dad’s a forester, my mom’s a politician) and I didn’t know anything about forests or forests practices.

“I assumed that the Noyo Harbor got muddy when it rained, and I took for granted all the trucks on the road that were a pain in the butt, but I’d never really made the connection between deforestation and what was going on in the harbor and on the roads.[40]

Stenberg welcomed her son’s involvement, but Liz Henry struggled with her daughter’s participation. Though she was not entirely unsympathetic to the goals of Redwood Summer, the supervisor firmly believed that the campaign would further polarize an already severely divided community. Lisa Henry’s protestations that it was Corporate Timber that was causing the polarization did not change her mother’s mind. Additionally, the supervisor felt—with some justification—that taking too strong a stand against working within the system, no matter how imperfect, could seriously jeopardize her standing as an elected official and that she was doing what she could within the confines of the system to demand reform. This divide between radical and liberal, revolutionary and reformist, perspectives was a source of great strain between many would be allied critics of Corporate Timber as Redwood Summer approached.[41]

* * * * *

In spite of the nonviolence code, the prejudice against Earth First! remained. Already, on March 8, at an environmentalist protest at the Fortuna CDF office (a very frequent target of such demonstrations), where fifty Earth First!ers had blocked the sidewalk outside the building, local high school students alternated between shouting obscenities and launching eggs and other projectiles at demonstrators. Even TEAM spokesman Ray Miller who was also present, challenging the Earth First!ers directly by giving them redwood seedlings and accusing of them of not knowing how to plant them properly—as if such knowledge qualified one to hold an opinion on P-L’s over harvesting of the old growth redwoods—waxed disdainful of the students, arguing that the environmentalists had a right to protest and that opponents of them should not “cower.”[42] Miller’s opinion was not shared by Fortuna Police Chief Lee Evanson who—rather than admonish the students to refrain from violent counterdemonstration, instead blamed Earth First!, declaring:

“These demonstrations are designed to attract media exposure. Earth First! uses unscrupulous tactics, looking to cause trouble so it will get more exposure. It’s not surprising that there will be counterdemonstrators, but we don’t want it to escalate to violence. From there it only grows, and we’ll find the city smack in the middle. With the possibilities of injuries and lawsuits and the police overtime costs, there’s no way the city, Police Department, or anyone from Fortuna can win.” [43]

His only defensive of such one-sidedness was to opine, “It’s getting very emotional. The locals here”—(as if the demonstrators weren’t local themselves, an all too common prejudice)—“see these kind of people as the enemy, because, after all, timber still puts the bread and butter on the table around here.” [44]

The City of Fortuna carried the anti-environmentalist prejudice a step further. The council instructed City Manager Robert Brown to write to Humboldt State University President Alistair McCrone, “to help with the situation.” Brown explained, “We’re not saying that all the demonstrators came from HSU, but in the letter I just want to say that the city is interested in the safety of the students and our citizens. We don’t want to deny anybody their rights to free speech. We just want to make sure no one gets hurt.”[45] HSU didn’t take very kindly to being implicated as the primary source for the protests or the suggestion that they were the breeding ground for Earth First!ers however. HSU vice president of student affairs Buzz Webb responded that it was “inaccurate” to connect Earth First! with the institution adding, “Some people unfortunately have the wrong idea (that) the university’s function is to be substitute parents,” as if political protest were equivalent to juvenile behavior and not a time-honored method for redress of grievances.[46]

Redwood Summer’s organizers set out to challenge such growing prejudice against environmental activists. Two teams of attorneys, one based in Humboldt County and the other based in Mendocino County had volunteered their services to combat legal repression against the organizers and the incoming “forest riders”.[47] The latter team was led by attorney Barry Vogel, who described civil disobedience as a legitimate form of protest, “(which) began with the Boston Tea Party (and) went on to establish religious freedoms, women’s rights, civil rights, and perhaps now the rights of people willing to defend one of the natural wonders of the world.” The legal teams were joined by San Francisco based attorney Susan B. Jordan, who expressed similar sentiments, declaring, “(Redwood Summer is) a brilliant tactic…I’m honored to be a part of it.”[48]

Mendocino County officials only seemed to watch and wring their hands anxiously at the prospect of the summer of protests. Many of them didn’t take too kindly to the increasingly apt comparisons between Redwood and Mississippi Summer. “I have no intention of becoming the ‘Bull Connor’ of California,” declared Mendocino County Undersheriff Alvie G. Rochester, “Both sides have mavericks, and these mavericks are going to create incidents…We’re just hoping cooler heads get together and get these timber issues worked out before summer comes.” Meanwhile, even Norm de Vall, a harsh critic of L-P and G-P lamented that the lack of available law enforcement might require the county to call upon the National Guard thus creating a “Mississippi Summer in Mendocino.”[49]

Redwood Summer’s organizers strongly felt that the comparison between Redwood Summer and Mississippi Summer was directly relevant, because both called for outside assistance, and both were intended to oppose bigotry. In the case of Mississippi Summer, the freedom riders challenged Southern racial prejudice against black southerners by the entrenched white power elite. In the case of Redwood Summer, the bigotry being challenged was “speciesism”. As Darryl Cherney described it:

“Many humans see the Earth and other species as something to be conquered and enslaved…We believe that the Earth deserves civil rights the same as people do…A redwood, a spotted owl, a black bear all have a right to exist for their own sake, irrespective of what value they may have for human profit.”[50]

To be certain, for their part, the Redwood Summer organizers went out of their way to emphasize that there should be no prejudice against timber workers, even those that were prejudiced against environmental activists. Judi Bari stated, “the battle is not between timber workers and the environmentalists. It’s between giant logging corporations and our community.”[51] In a guidebook being prepared for Redwood Summer participants, the organizers made it clear that it was the corporations, not the workers, who were the enemy:

“When you’re sitting in front of a bulldozer or walking a picket line and an angry logger is screaming at you to ‘Get a Job!’ and ‘Go Home!,’ it’s easy to forget that timber workers are not our enemies. And when they see thousands of college students and other environmental activists from out of the area coming to the Northcoast threatening their livelihoods (as they see it), it’s easy for them to see us as the enemy too.

“This is a tragic mistake, for workers and environmentalists are natural allies. Loggers and mill-workers are victimized by the giant timber companies. Since their whole way of life—their jobs, homes, families—depends on unsustainable forest practices, we must make the timber companies pay for the education, retraining and job placement needed to cushion the blow of conversion to ecologically health timber practices. It’s easy for us—since our future and our kids’ future does not depend on continued over-logging—to demand others to sacrifice for the good of the planet, but without concrete support to make change possible; they will not listen seriously.”[52]

As for violent behavior, the environmentalists (and IWW members) had already been on the receiving end of it, at least three times in the past year, and law enforcement had turned their heads the other way. “I don’t care what anyone says; this represents a pattern of allowing violence against radicals,” complained Judi Bari. Alvie Rochester dismissed the criticism, simply declaring, “I just don’t see that.”[53] As for violence on the part of potential loose cannons on the demonstrators’ side, Darryl Cherney stressed that the nonviolence code and trainings were specifically intended to weed them out. He indicated that one man had already been instructed to leave after the organizers learned he had incited violence at a previous, unrelated protest.[54]

* * * * *

In spite of all of these efforts, Corporate Timber and its front groups only grew more steadfast in their opposition to Redwood Summer and Forests Forever. The corporations’ rhetoric, which sought to divide timber workers and environmental activists grew steadily more violent and threatening. This was due in no small part to their very real fear that Forests Forever would be approved by the voters, that new regulations would be enacted due to the Northern Spotted Owl, and that Earth First! - IWW Local #1 might actually succeed in organizing a large swath of dissident workers. As a result, G-P, L-P, and P-L were logging at an unprecedentedly frantic pace. According to the Sierra Club state forestry practices chair Gail Lucas, “every available feller, Cat operator and log-truck driver is working full throttle. Workers are coming in from as far away as Colorado and Idaho.”[55] Judi Bari agreed, confirming that logging on the North Coast was “going full-tilt-boogie.”[56]

If anything, it was Corporate Timber who had a monopoly on violent and divisive rhetoric. John Campbell was especially full of fire and brimstone. In early April, he convened a company meeting in the Winema Theater in Scotia, addressing the assembled workers with a speech intended to incite fear and mob hysteria. The normally defiant Kelly Bettiga, this time seated in the back of the theater, could only sit and watch, his stomach churning at the witch hunt that was being stirred up in front of him. Campbell warned the workers that if the “radical Earth First! initiative”—meaning Forests Forever—were passed by the voters, there would have to be layoffs, perhaps as much as half of the workforce. He declared that Scotia had been a happy place before the Earth First!ers had stuck their bloody nose into the town’s business. He described Redwood Summer as the biggest threat to the stability of the Pacific Lumber company and its workforce imaginable. He denounced the “freedom riders for the forest” as being nothing more than watermelons, green on the outside, but all red on the inside.[57] This was a standard Corporate Timber and Mining talking point[58] , but many of the workers, including the older veteran employees who had lived through much of the Cold War, accepted it with cheers and applause. Then, Campbell revealed that he was prepared for the impending “communist” invasion: he had hired a private security firm full of former CIA and FBI agents.[59]

Not to be outdone, the Humboldt Beacon and Fortuna Advance’s Christian fundamentalist editor, Glenn Simmons, wrote a sneering dismissal of Earth First!’s nonviolence pledge, asking “what if the Earth First! demonstrations themselves are the cause of violence?” which was akin to an apologist for rape asking “what if the victim brought it upon themselves?” and was an all too common right wing response to organized resistance to the status quo from political forces on the left.[60] Simmons, naturally, continued to accept full page advertisements from both P-L and L-P, showing precisely where his loyalties lay.

TEAM geared up for more counterdemonstrations at Earth First! rallies, particularly in Humboldt County.[61] WECARE, meanwhile, published a letter to its members entitled “A Word to the Wise” denouncing Redwood Summer with falsehoods and half truths such as:

“There are indications that the event has been in the planning stage for three years, with some 1,200 letters sent to Universities nationwide. Training sessions are now occurring and activities are to begin with the end of the school year (the last week in June)…You should be alerted to the fact that at recent protests in Oregon, films have shown the same faces as have been noted in Humboldt County. This appears to be a well-orchestrated production.”[62]

Redwood Summer’s organizers could only dream about being so lucky or fortunate. Their efforts were exceptional given their incredibly limited shoestring budgets. The notion that the organizers and demonstrators were part of some roving band of marauders that traipsed around the Pacific Northwest like a mob of heavies was a myth that had been applied to dissidents for generations, and not just environmentalists. The idea that Redwood Summer had been devised some three years previously was laughable, though, certainly the vision of being able to mobilize thousands of supporters within the area, let alone more from outside was always in the back of the minds of many Earth First!ers, though never in their wildest dreams did many think they could actually achieve it.

WECARE urged its members to not engage with demonstrators, instead suggesting that the former use surveillance to keep tabs on the latter:

“Be aware of strange vehicles in the area where you are working. Note description and license numbers.

“Note flyers announcing an activity. Notify the Sheriff’s office of these, do not assume they know about them…Keep a camera in your vehicle and take pictures of same. People occupying offices, using glue in office machinery, disrupting operations.

“We have been advised that violent reaction may do more harm than good. The authorities must remain neutral until the law is broken and you may be the target of their actions if you break the law. Earth First! would gain sympathy if they were the target of violent reaction.

“We have also been advised that the media does not have the right to trespass on your property. Landowners can notify the media in advance that they do not have permission to trespass. This can be done in writing, preferably by registered mail.”[63]

While this may have seemed like an appeal to reason, directed at the loose cannons on the right, if one read between the lines in the last paragraph it could easily be interpreted as a roundabout way to urge that the vigilante elements keep their activity “underground”.[64]

In Mendocino County, embattled IWA Local 3-469 representative Don Nelson continued his further realignment into the Corporate Timber camp by dispatching two of loyal followers, grader Dave Bowmen and machinist Richard Hargreaves, to the nonunion Harvest Market to intimidate two young women who were gathering signatures for Forests Forever. The nearby Albertsons had illegally chased away fellow signature gatherers after a mere seven phone calls from alleged loggers complaining about it.[65] Nelson claimed that Bowmen and Hargreaves were distributing educational materials and were themselves threatened by “one of the so-called IWW spokesmen” and demanded a retraction from Bruce Anderson who had alerted his readers to Nelson’s actions in the Anderson Valley Advertiser.[66] The “supposed IWW spokesman” that Nelson complained of was, in fact, Anna Marie Stenberg, who was approximately “half the size of each” of the two mill workers, and for whom Nelson had an intense dislike due to her role in exposing his collaboration with G-P over the PCB spill. Stenberg had asked the two millworkers on whose authority they were acting and was ignored, at which point she contacted one of the IWA dissidents whom the IWW had been assisting in their OSHA hearing. Stenberg’s source revealed that Nelson had not received sanction by a vote from Local 3-469’s membership and was acting autocratically. Stenberg presented this information to Bowman and Hargreaves who—lacking any further recourse—stomped off in a huff.[67]

Doug Bosco was more than willing to add his voice to the chorus condemning Redwood Summer, for numerous reasons. These included his vulnerability in the upcoming election, the increasing popularity of Forests Forever, and the threat that the campaign posed to his now increasingly vain efforts to resuscitate the failed timber “pact.” The congressmen accused the incoming “freedom riders” of increasing tensions in the timber dependent communities of the North Coast, stating, “They will be intruders and outsiders, and we don’t need them or want them. If they come, they’ll cause trouble…we have more than our supply of activists. Let them find causes elsewhere.” Dan Hauser concurred, proclaiming, “The tensions are so high now, I don’t understand why more people haven’t been hurt. Adding large numbers of people to the scene is dangerous.”[68]

Stoking the fires still further, on March 28, L-P announced that they would be laying off still more mill workers—this time in their Covelo, Ukiah, and Oroville facilities.[69] This announcement came on the heels of the company announcing yet another quarter of record earnings.[70] Joe Wheeler informed several L-P mill workers that, beginning in November, the graveyard shift would be cut from the Ukiah facility. The 93 acre Covelo mill would be shuttered for two months, and the Oroville plant would eliminate a shift. Rumors were circulating that the Willits stud mill would also close, but Tucker denied them.[71] Tucker barely even tried to deflect the inevitable chorus of resentment opining, “I know the political timing is lousy…but business and politics at this juncture don’t mix.”[72]

It was hard to see what part of this business decision wasn’t political, however. As if that weren’t bad enough, Eel River Sawmills was planning to shut down their mill in Alton, at the junction of Highways 36 and 101 in Humboldt County, near the site of the recent Earth First! log truck ambush.[73] At least the L-P and Eel River workers were warned of their plight. On April 12, the Redwood Empire owned lumber mill in Philo shut down without any notice to the workers or even a hint that its closure was imminent.[74] There were even rumors flying that the Miller-Rellim mill in Del Norte County would cease operations.[75] In a “see, we told you so!” moment, the Santa Rosa Press Democrat went in to Corporate Timber talking-point autopilot very quickly and excoriated the environmentalists for refusing to compromise, but they had spoken too soon.[76]

These mill closures came in spite of the unsurpassed logging rates then currently underway, and there is little doubt these actions served to either increase Corporate Timber’s bottom line, incite divisions between millworkers and environmentalists, or both. Not surprisingly, L-P spokesmen, including both Tucker and Wheeler, blamed the eminent listing of the spotted owl as an endangered species, challenges to THPs, and the expansion of park and wilderness areas for the closures[77] , charges that were blatantly false, and—in least in the case of the Covelo facility, easily debunked.[78] L-P even admitted that some of the jobs were being replaced by automation, which had zero connection to environmental factors.[79] “Woods” Sutherland declared that the corporation, “seem(ed) to be thumbing its nose at the rest of the industry with its patently callous decision.” Gail Lucas suggested that the actual reason for the layoffs was clearly a result of the company’s quest for cheap, Mexican labor, and she debunked L-P’s claim that it was logging sustainably, arguing, “State figures for Mendocino County clearly show industry already has been cutting at more than twice the growth rate.” [80]

As far as Hauser and Keene were concerned, these companies, especially L-P, had now pushed the envelope too far. It was bad enough that the environmentalists sought to use the initiative process to make an end run around the legislative process (and the inside deals that such implicitly allowed). Now L-P was violating the spirit of the so-called “Timber Pact” by attempting an end run around the political process from the other direction. (Couldn’t they see that this was an election year?) Incensed, Barry Keene lashed out at both L-P and Earth First!, declaring:

“(This is) an all-out war between extremists…Once again, innocent workers and their families are caught in the crossfire of hostile artillery.

“The workers and families are suffering at the hands of some pursuing profits at whatever human cost, and of others desiring to end all human activity in the woods…With its recent manufacturing moves into Mexico, L-P’s timing couldn’t be worse. I can’t imagine that people won’t regard the two events as related.

“It looks to me like the company is engaging in Kamikaze public relations…Many who live in timber-dependent areas are beginning to feel cornered by non-negotiable initiatives and strident environmentalists who they perceive are aiming to wipe out their jobs…and now the jobs are going.

“Add the recent calls by environmental extremists for a summer of civil disobedience and you begin to see the real potential for physical harm.”[81]

Dan Hauser was no less angry. He rightfully criticized L-P for its greed, stating, “These giant corporations have absolutely no notion of moral responsibility to their employees…It was a stupid move on (L-P’s) part.”[82] He too worried that the corporation’s arrogance would doom the “Timber Pact”.[83]

Doug Bosco also weighed in on the closures, and for once, did not shift the blame to the environmentalists. “L-P went out of its way to make a cut-and-dried corporate decision and then tried to use the usual whipping boys to make its case,” he declared, and he had good reason to do so; politically he had much to lose.[84] He faced political challenges from the left by Lionel Gambill, again, as well as another one of Judi Bari’s friends, Darlene Cormingore, an up and coming Peace and Freedom Party candidate from Sonoma Country. He also faced challenges ostensibly from the right by two potential Republican challengers, Frank Riggs and Tim Stoen.[85] However, Tim Stoen, a Ukiah attorney who was most famous for his association with Jonestown and the People’s Temple, argued that when a corporation like L-P makes “huge profits by extracting resources from a community, that company owes it to the community to maintain jobs, as a moral issue,” thus staking out a position to Bosco’s left politically leaving him nowhere to go, except further to the right where Frank Riggs awaited him.[86]

The revelations about L-P’s “Mexican Adventure” shocked workers (and all of those who claimed to speak for them) as well. Trucker Wally Edwards who had hauled logs around the North Coast for a quarter century angrily interjected, “I’m glad they’re leaving. A big corporation like L-P has never done anything for this country. Small businesses are what built this country, and now the corporations are tearing it down. It’s not just L-P, it’s all of them!”[87] Even TEAM spokesman Don Stamps found himself in a position of rare agreement with the environmentalists, and he expressed public disdain at Tucker’s crassness, although for entirely different reasons: L-P’s actions were driving potential recruits into the Earth First! - IWW Local #1 camp instead.[88] Sure enough, Gyppo Owner Walter Smith—though he had been grumbling about L-P privately for years—now decided to openly criticize L-P.[89] Although he seemingly stood alone, Smith knew he had the tacit support of many of his fellow timber workers:

“My position is, as part of the industry, that I’m anti-corporation and pro-industry. The industry is really us: the workers and the gyppos, not the corporations. The corporations have come here and are shipping out all the money to other places, and they’re so diversified that they’re not just timber companies; they have holdings and interests in other things. We’re really the industry, and it’s our community that’s at stake here, and the workers need to put up a united front against the corporations. They need to say, “Get out of here. We will buy you out; we will run it ourselves, and we will do a much better job, because we know what’s out there, and we know what needs to be done to keep it around.”

“The workers have to be able to control their own destiny. At this point, the corporations and the individuals that have the money and the power have all gone kind of hog wild, and they really don’t worry about us at all. We’re just incidental to their making money.”[90]

As Bruce Anderson had suggested, Walter Smith was by no means alone in his sentiment, stating, “Lots of other loggers, log haulers, millworkers, and gyppos agree with (him), but have to keep quiet because L-P will definitely not hesitate to cut them off at the knees.”[91] Smith agreed, stating, “It’s a united front when you talk on the landing, but it’s a different united front when you talk in public.”[92] Sure enough, Smith had faced blacklisting by L-P and its front groups for his criticisms.[93] So, in an effort to protect his seven workers and partner Ken Smith from further retaliation, he had sold his share of the company to his now ex-partner in January.[94]

However, in this case, more than a few L-P workers were angry enough to denounce the company secretly. One anonymous L-P employee from Ukiah even contacted Judi Bari and told her, “We need to have a demonstration and I don’t know how to organize one. Will you?”[95] As a result, Earth First! – IWW Local #1, as Judi Bari described it, officially “came out” at the April 3, 1990 Mendocino County Board of Supervisor’s meeting, reiterating the still unanswered demands that the County exercise its power of eminent domain to seize L-P’s holdings and operate them in the public interest.[96] Joining Judi Bari, Darryl Cherney, Betty Ball, Louis Korn, and Rick Cloninger was Walter Smith.[97]

Don Nelson sought a piece of the action himself, but Judi Bari wasn’t buying it. Nelson made a public appearance prior to the Board of Supervisor’s meeting, joining Bari, Betty Ball, and Supervisor Norm de Vall for a press conference condemning L-P’s move to Mexico. When Nelson reported that he had sent a letter to Doug Bosco asking the congressman to intervene to thwart the company’s outsourcing, Bari denounced him as “a wimp, a simpleton, a company hack, and an all-around corporate collaborator for being so silly as to approach a corporate lackey like Bosco for assistance.” Nelson, left in disgust, accusing Bari of lacking credibility and describing her as a liar, a charge that more accurately fit Nelson himself. Supervisor de Vall’s own performance at this event was largely inert, though he seemed mildly sympathetic to the call for eminent domain.[98] The normally more conservative Jim Eddie, by contrast, whose district included the already struggling community of Covelo, which was located near the Round Valley Indian reservation, lamented that L-P’s decision would “devastate Covelo.”[99]

The Supervisors’ meeting itself was a hitherto unprecedented public display of unity between timber workers and environmentalists. Judi Bari reminded the board about the eminent domain proposal, arguing that it was not even that radical a measure, that L-P was committing corporate crimes, and “sucking the life blood out of the community.” She declared, “You thought we were pretty much off the wall. Now (you must realize) it’s probably the only way to save our county.”[100] She also cited the case of Fortunado Reyes as specific proof that L-P treated its workers as exploitatively as they treated the forests. “It’s not environmentalists versus timber—it’s corporate greed versus the local community,” she said.[101] Bari described the inherently destructive and unsustainable nature of L-Ps “logging to infinity” forestry, warning that this year they would hit the “timber gap” where they would run out of marketable logs. She admonished the board, “Are we going to wait until they finish or are we going to stop them now?” [102]

Bari was very quickly followed by Betty Ball, who disputed the rhetoric that environmental activists were responsible for the mill shutdowns:

“It’s not the environmentalists who have been overcutting…How stupid do they think we are? There could have been forests forever here. There could have been jobs forever. Logging is one of the oldest and finest professions on the North Coast, but the industry has ruined it for everybody…It’s outrageous what they’re doing.” [103]

Anna Marie Stenberg read the Georgia-Pacific millworkers statement, issued the previous December in response to Don Nelson, to emphasize the point that the latter did not adequately represent the interests of front line mill workers.[104]

Rick Cloninger informed the Board that L-P was now shipping even its wood chips—produced primarily from pecker poles, baby trees from the local forests—to power biomass plants in Tracy and Samoa. He accused Barry Keene of being in the pocket of corporate timber and that his attempts at “compromise” were nothing but a smokescreen.[105] “Our trees are being used to provide power for the Sacramento Valley. Don’t let L-P chip their way to another year of record profits,” implored the Laytonville resident.[106] “L-P must stop seeing everything with dollar signs,” he said.[107] Cloninger noted that two trucking operations, Dutra and Poole, were most likely transporting the chips out of the county. His spouse, Kathy Cloninger, who operated a recycling center in Laytonville, said that they had learned of this, because L-P’s biomass plant in Tracy was located right next door to Owens-Rockway where the Cloiningers took their glass for recycling.[108]

True to his word, Walter Smith charged L-P with logging the land to death. He drew a contrast between land he had logged in sustainably in 1982, and L-P’s recent “moonscaping” of that very same land nearly eight years later.[109] He was eloquent in his condemnation of the corporation stating, “L-P says the reason (for closing its mills) is that environmentalists are preserving the forests. The truth is that they are logging off the land and then subdividing and selling it…The forest service is giving up as much timber as it can.” Smith submitted that the reason L-P was closing its Covelo facility is that there were no more trees there. He revealed to the board that when he had worked for L-P that they had accused him of “not being a team player.” Smith countered that his “team” was the L-P mill workers. “The latest assault is the most painful since it comes from the very people who should be most concerned for our welfare—our employers,” declared Smith. Continuing, he admonished:

“(They have) exported logs to Mexico, exported jobs to Mexico, closed mills, and (made) meaningless agreements…the Millworkers are the economic backbone of this County. The forest is the heartbeat of rural nature in this county. Join my team and ban raw log exports and stop the liquidation of our forests.”[110]

After all of this, Darryl Cherney once again proved to be the show-stopper reprising his performance of El Pio[111] , which, according to Judi Bari, made everyone, except Supervisor Marilyn Butcher, smile.[112]

Don Nelson was also not smiling in the wake of the meeting, declaring:

“In the recent article on the occupation of the Mendocino County Supervisor’s[sic] chambers by ‘Earth First’,[sic] repeated reference[sic] is made to labor leaders as being a part of that group. Did anyone in fact see any bonafide labor representative in that group?…

“The so called[sic] IWW representative has no workers to represent. She was told that quite clearly by Judge Goldstein when she tried to intervene in the Georgia Pacific PCB incident, when he said that ‘The International[sic] Workers of the World, Local Union No. 1 do not fall within the definition of a labor organization.’…

“As a matter of policy the IWW does not seek to organize workers and negotiate contracts because they believe in the complete abolition of capitalism and the complete abolition of the wage system. They are not representatives of organized labor nor of lumber workers. On the other hand, the International Woodworkers of America is a bona fide labor organization.”[113]

Nelson’s claims were preposterous and untrue. His dismissal of the IWW was no doubt lifted from the pages of various (poorly researched) history books whose command of the facts were suspect to say the least. The IWW had, in fact, negotiated many contracts over its history and still does so. The rest of Nelson’s statements were, of course, only true on paper at best. And if the IWA was “bona fide” it left a lot to be desired, even as far as class collaborationist unions go. Bruce Anderson, at least, responded to Nelson and reminded him that nowhere in his screed did he actually address any of the issues raised by Bari, Earth First!, or the IWW at the meeting.[114] Nelson spoke favorably of Walter Smith’s presence, but he might have wanted to ask the former gyppo owner before invoking his name, because the latter was in near solid agreement with Bari on the issue.[115] And, if the IWW was not a “bona fide” labor union, they sure as hell sounded a lot more like one than Don Nelson’s IWA in their declarations of support for Redwood Summer:

“The exploitation of natural resources by the lumber companies is inevitably linked to the exploitation of labor...The Wobblies are pleased to work with Earth First! and local community groups in this campaign to save trees and jobs…

“We support real democracy in the workplace by putting all decision-making (and profits) into the hands of those who actually do the work. This is also the best assurance against environmental destruction, for the workers have an overwhelming self-interest in promoting safe and sustainable forms of production. After all, it’s the workers and their families who, under our current for-profit system, suffer the worst effects from pollution and other work-related health hazards.”[116]

Judi Bari fired back against the anti-Redwood Summer rhetoric in a guest editorial in the Santa Rosa Press Democrat, declaring:

“This type of doublespeak seriously misrepresents the very real and intense struggle that is going on in the redwood region. It is time to set the record straight...

“According to the Mendocino County Forest Advisory Committee, L-P is cutting at more than twice the rate of growth in our county’s forests...In 1975, the Oswald Report predicted that, if harvest rates continued, a sharp fall-down in saw-timber supply would hit in 1990. Young stands would be growing but there wouldn’t be enough mature trees to keep the area’s mills going. This prediction was right on target, but no one predicted L-P’s unconscionable response to the problem...

“The loggers know this as well as the environmentalists and are no happier about it. ‘We’re killing babies,’ one logger told me. ‘I can’t feel good about what we’re doing anymore.’

“L-P is engaged in a mop-up operation in Mendocino County, stripping our children’s trees and jobs and threatening our area with the collapse of our forest ecosystem. Earth First! could disappear tomorrow and the mills would keep closing.”[117]

Bari went on to explain the call for Redwood Summer:

“Our call for mass protest this summer is a last ditch attempt to slow the corporations down to sustained yield before there is nothing left to save. It is not directed against the timber workers—every day we slow the corporations down is another day employees can collect a paycheck before the final layoff.

“But Barry Keene, Don Nelson, and others have been portraying this struggle as a ‘war’ between workers and environmentalists. They have been making statements that would incite people to violence against us, and this must be stopped.

“We are calling only for nonviolent protest this summer. We will be providing nonviolence training and strict nonviolence guidelines. We stand by our unbroken record of four years. We have held hundreds of protests, and, although violence has been directed against us, we have never initiated violence against others...

“The real reason they are so upset with Earth First! is because we have proposed a strategy that just might work.”[118]

Don Nelson couldn’t bear to let Bari have the last word, so he fired off a guest editorial of his own, which the Press Democrat published two weeks later. Once again, however Nelson mostly engaged in ad hominem attacks and peppered those with no shortage of self aggrandizing half-truths aimed to make himself look like the real voice of the timber workers on the north coast. His first shot was to once again accuse Bari of misrepresenting the facts, which was a clear case of the pot calling the kettle black, because his very next statement was, “No one has accused Earth First! of being responsible for Louisiana-Pacific Corporation’s actions.” Evidently Nelson was unaware of the dozens of comments uttered by WECARE, Candy Boak, Harry Merlo, Glennys Simmons, Shep Tucker, and Joe Wheeler—all unsavory characters with whom he was now associating—over the course of the previous two years saying essentially just that. Nelson then took credit for publically denouncing L-P’s overcut, which was not really earth shattering news, because practically everybody had done that. He then went on to credit Barry Keene for attempting to craft legislation against over-cutting since as early as 1973. While that may have been technically true, Keene’s language was always based on the notion that corporate timber was a given, and in any case his legislation had been weak and ineffective.[119] At this point Nelson went completely over the edge, stating:

“To further insult us, they claim that they are the true representatives of the people.

Who are they? When were they elected by anyone? When have they shouldered the responsibility for their actions? Why are they trying to cause workers to lose money and work? Why are they trying to provoke the workers? Is it because they still really believe what their mentor, Dave Foreman, thinks and promotes? Bari has proclaimed herself as taking a nonviolent approach to resolving an overcut problem by L-P and Pacific Lumber. However, she attacks everyone.”[120]

This was, of course, absurd; there was absolutely no record of Judi Bari having attacked anyone, let alone everyone, unless Nelson was equating legitimate criticism of half-truths, falsehoods, and unethical behavior, something Nelson had developed a penchant for by this time. Nelson’s repeated insistence that Bari “had not been elected” deliberately distracted attention away from the open secret that Nelson had utterly lost any credibility he had with his own rank and file, let alone anyone else other than the apologists for Corporate Timber. Naturally he neglected to mention any of this in his response to Bari. Instead, Nelson regurgitated a series of statements from various Earth First!ers, including Dave Foreman, Paul Watson, and Darryl Cherney, taken from an article by Michael Parfit in The Smithsonian and quoted grossly out of context.[121]

Nelson’s attempt to isolate the Redwood Summer organizers didn’t work, however. At least one reader, M. Martin, in a letter to the editor of the Press Democrat took Nelson to task for the latter’s letter excoriating Judi Bari and attempted to remind him that it was L-P that closed the mills, not Earth First!.[122] Potter Valley resident Michael B. Ward also revealed the shallowness of Nelson’s statements, drawing attention to L-P executives’ “fancy…multi-million dollar, tan and orange, corporate jets that fly in and out of the Ukiah airport,” and the “even fancier looking Ranger helicopters L-P executives use to fly out of the local mills,” which was ironic given the corporation’s cries of poverty. He made it clear that he was, “happy to see environmentalists and loggers working together,” and guessed that “they (were) really fighting for the same thing: more trees.”[123]

Meanwhile, Don Nelson found his list of allies shrinking steadily. On April 23, the Mendocino County Democratic Party Central Committee voted 10-3 to endorse Forests Forever. The three votes against the endorsement came from Don Nelson, Harry Bristrin, and Dan Hoy. Bristrin’s dissenting vote was likely made via instructions from Doug Bosco for whom the former was a newly appointed local representative. Bristrin also excoriated the majority for not endorsing Bosco’s reelection campaign, choosing instead to support Lionel Gambill. That a majority of the committee had refused to endorse Bosco was a testament to growing rank and file opposition within the Democratic Party to his unfettered allegiance to corporate timber.[124] Nelson’s opposition to the majority was also inevitable, as he had clearly embraced the role as the “union” front-man for big timber, and to drive the point home, he made a huge production out of “resigning” from the committee, declaring the majority a collection of “non-working elitists.”[125]

Nelson’s “resignation” was no less ineffective at turning folks against either Redwood Summer or Forests Forever. Another one-time Nelson ally, Roanne Withers, who was a fellow Democratic Party Central Committee member declared (in a letter sent to the Santa Rosa Press Democrat which the latter refused to publish), that Nelson’s resignation was “the only positive thing he has done for his labor constituents in a long time”, citing all of his past betrayals of the same, from his refusal to honor the UFCW picket lines in Fort Bragg to the abandonment of the G-P mill workers hit by the PCB spill as evidence. She also debunked Nelson’s declaration of the majority’s “elitism” by pointing out that they consisted of “a union shop steward, a bookkeeper, a typesetter, (multiple) attorneys, an innkeeper, an auto-mechanic, and Mendocino County Supervisor (Norm De Vall).[126] Earth First!er Bill Evans went one step further and dismissed Nelson’s resignation as grandstanding.[127] Nelson’s bark once again proved to be worse than his bite, however, as he rejoined the committee (“slunk back” in the words of Bruce Anderson) one month later.[128]

* * * * *

There was one important figure who was swayed by the negative rhetoric against Redwood Summer, however. Shortly after the Mendocino County Supervisors’ meeting, Gail Lucas issued a public statement condemning the Mississippi Summer of the California Redwoods, proclaiming:

“While we cannot dispute Earth First!’s definition of the problem, we do not agree with their solution…We believe that what is needed is action at the polls by the people of the state of California, not recruits who, however well-intentioned or well-briefed in non-violent protest, present a potential for violence…The planned confrontations (sic) will not save trees. They instead could generate strong antagonism from a sizable portion of the community with whom environmentalists are presently trying to establish a dialog.”[129]

Lucas’s statement was quickly bolstered by a letter of support from Jerry Merrill, the executive director of the Planning and Conservation League.[130] The national Sierra Club, Sierra Club California, and the Redwood Chapter of the Sierra Club followed this up with a statement distancing themselves from “illegal acts, including civil disobedience” arguing that interested persons should channel their efforts into supporting the electoral campaign to pass Big Green and Forests Forever.[131]

Various Earth First!ers reacted to Lucas’s sudden betrayal in various ways. Judi Bari quickly accused her of “spending too much time in smoke-filled rooms with Keene, Hauser, and Don Nelson instead of listening to her own membership,”[132] and further retorted:

“This is not going to make one iota of difference in what we do, or in how many people come. We didn’t ask for their endorsement, and we don’t care if they condemn it. Although I respect the Sierra Club’s efforts, if working through the system did as well as Gail Lucas says it does, then we wouldn’t be in this desperate situation.”[133]

Greg King went as far as to accuse Lucas of “environmental imperialism”.[134]

Darryl Cherney concurred, further suggesting that civil disobedience had created the climate making Forests Forever possible in the first place.

Ukiah Earth First!er Sequoia—who was passionately outspoken even by Earth First! standards—bluntly opined that Don Nelson and Gail Lucas must have been sleeping together, elaborating “It’s clear to me. Their press releases are almost identical in spirit,” in response to which Bruce Anderson, a staunch Redwood Summer supporter, quibbled, “I dunno Sequoia. They’re already sleeping with Georgia-Pacific, Louisiana-Pacific, Bosco, Keene, and Hauser…When do they find time to sleep with each other?”[135]

Taking a somewhat more diplomatic approach, Ron Guenther and Betty Ball who were both Earth First!ers and Sierra Club rank and file members publically rebuked Lucas’s dismissal of populist resistance to corporate timber in an open letter:

“This is of great concern to us. The California State Forest Practices Task Force Chair is a position within the Sierra Club’s bureaucratic superstructure increasingly isolated from the Club’s grass roots effort, which gives it direction. The Task Force Chair does not speak for the grass roots Sierra Club, The increasing isolation of the Task Force Chair from the Club’s grass roots effort is seriously threatening the accomplishment of the Sierra Club’s basic forestry mission, which is protecting and enhancing, and acting as an advocate for the California forest environment. As leaders in the most directly affected North West California Sierra Club grass roots Groups and Chapter, we deplore the attack on Earth First! in the name of the Sierra Club.”[136]

Lucas didn’t speak for anyone other than herself and skittish middle class “environmentalists” who had a good deal more in common with Harry Merlo and Charles Hurwitz than the timber workers or Earth First!. The Santa Rosa Press Democrat, however, spun Lucas’s statement as “proof” that Redwood Summer was “losing support”.[137] Two weeks later, when the Redwood Coast Watersheds Alliance disassociated itself from Redwood Summer, the corporate press was quick to report that as major news also.[138] The media seemed wholly uninterested in the contrasting sentiments of G-P millworker Ken Cleaverwood, however, who stated:

“So the local Sierra Club shit-kickers are going to join hands with Earth First! I guess that’s hopeful. Guenther, Bari, Ball, &; Co. are at least honest, which is more than I can say for that corrupt, sumbitch of a union so-called business agent we’ve got here who sells us out to the Co. every chance he gets. The industry runs Nelson, who’s been in bed with the Sierra Club timber rep ever since I can remember. Anything that breaks up this cozy nut can’t help but be good for the worker. Any logger who even thinks about coming down hard on an Earth First!er this summer is one silly sumbitch. Hey, you dumb galoots, who do you think’s looking out for you, the union?”[139]

* * * * *

Earth First! on the North Coast had eliminated every halfway legitimate obstacle to their potential to turn timber workers against the corporations, save one: tree spiking. Although Judi Bari had personally renounced it at the Public Law conference in Oregon, it was not an official statement, and she knew that, in spite of the near unanimous support her announcement received it still represented, at best, a vocal minority within the Earth First! movement. Bari had other supporters outside of Earth First! however, especially the growing number of timber workers who she now could confidently count upon as allies, including Gene Lawhorn, Pete Kayes, Walter Smith, the G-P millworkers affected by the PCB spill, and the many unnamed anonymous L-P employees with whom she had numerous contacts. Without exception, all of them agreed that Earth First! would never achieve much more credibility until they renounced any tactic that potentially placed timber workers at direct risk to their health and safety.[140]

After considerable discussion and urging by Judi Bari and others who attended the conference, spokespeople for every northwestern California Earth First! Group as well as IWW Local #1 decided to call a press conference and publically renounce tree spiking. On April 11, 1990, at the Louisiana Pacific Mill in Samoa, Judi Bari (representing Ukiah Earth First!), Darryl Cherney, (representing Southern Humboldt County Earth First!), Mike Roselle (speaking as one of Earth First!’s cofounders), Rick and Kathi Cloninger (representing Laytonville Earth First!), Larry Evans (representing miscellaneous North Coast Earth First!ers), Greg King (representing the Redwood Action Team), Pam Davis (representing Sonoma County Earth First!), Annie Oakleaf, (representing Albion Earth First!), and Anna Marie Stenberg (representing IWW Local #1 officially—though more than half of the others were IWW members as well) issued the following statement:

“In response to the concerns of loggers and mill-workers, Northern California Earth First! organizers are renouncing the tactic of tree spiking in our area. Through the coalitions we have been building with lumber workers, we have learned that the timber corporations care no more for the lives of their employees than they do for the life of the forest. Their routine maiming and killing of mill workers is coldly calculated into the cost of doing business, just as the destruction of whole ecosystems is considered a reasonable by-product of lumber production.

“These companies would think nothing of sending a spiked tree through a mill, and relish the anti-Earth First! publicity that an injury would cause.

“Since Earth First! is not a membership organization, it is impossible to speak for all Earth First!ers. But this decision has been widely discussed among Earth First!ers in our area, and the local sentiment is overwhelmingly in favor of renouncing tree-spiking. We hope that our influence as organizers will cause any potential tree-spikers to consider using a different method. We must also point out that we are not speaking for all Earth First! groups in this pronouncement. Earth First! is decentralized, and each group can set its own policies. A similar statement to this one renouncing tree spiking is now being made in Southern Oregon, but not all groups have reached the broad consensus we have on this issue.

“But in our area, the loggers and mill workers are our neighbors, and they should be our allies, not our adversaries. Their livelihood is being destroyed along with the forest. The real conflict is not between us and the timber workers, it is between the timber corporation and our entire community.

“We want to give credit for this change in local policy to the rank and file timber workers who have risked their jobs and social relations by coming forward and talking to us. This includes Gene Lawhorn of Roseburg Lumber in Oregon, who defied threats to appear publicly with Earth First! organizer Judi Bari. It also includes the Georgia Pacific, Louisiana Pacific, and Pacific Lumber employees who are members of IWW Local #1 in northern California.

“Equipment sabotage is a time-honored tradition among industrial workers. It was not invented by Earth First!, and it is certainly not limited to Earth First! even in our area. But the target of monkey wrenching was always intended to be the machinery of destruction, not the workers who operate that machinery for $7/hour. This renunciation of tree spiking is not a retreat, but rather an advance that will allow us to stop fighting the victims and concentrate on the corporations themselves.”[141]

Granting that Earth First! on the North Coast never actually engaged in tree spiking, Darryl Cherney commented, “I admit it’s a bit unusual to renounce a tactic that you haven’t used to begin with, but we’re tired of being asked to answer for something that we don’t do.”[142]

The renunciation received fairly decent coverage in the local mainstream press, including the Santa Rosa Press Democrat, whose coverage of Earth First! and Redwood Summer was most favorable among the northwestern California corporate dailies.[143] Many timber workers and Mendocino County locals cheered the decision and expressed their support for Earth First!.[144] However, the Eureka Times-Standard, whose editorial policy was staunchly anti Earth First!, botched the story completely by publishing a headline which suggested the opposite of what actually happened, and this caused further tensions in Humboldt County.[145] The San Francisco Chronicle was even worse, editorializing favorably of the renunciation, albeit under the extremely inaccurate and uncalled for headline “Eco-Terrorists Abandon Spikes”, which was to suggest that even if Earth First! renounced all actions save knitting, they’d still be denounced as terrorists.[146] The national Corporate Media was equally atrocious in its coverage, and the worst example was the New York Times which called Bari an advocate of tree-spiking, in spite of Bari never having been one, even before her public renunciation in Eugene. To make matters worse, in no case did any of the press stories, even the sympathetic examples, mention Bari’s labor activism.[147]

Those that renounced tree spiking anticipated the possibility that the announcement would not be universally welcomed by Earth First!ers outside of northwestern California and southern Oregon. Darryl Cherney, who was still the most prominent local Earth First! spokesperson at the time wrote a separate statement intended to clarify the positions of those that had agreed to the renunciation stating, among other things:

“The decision was not irreversible, should the forest situation worsen, although it is hard to fathom how much worse it can get. The decision is not made for all Earth First!ers, and as a non-organization, we are entitled to our individual opinions. We take no responsibility for any prior spikings; our intent is to actively advocate not spiking trees at this point. This is not a retreat, nor is it an abandonment of monkeywrenching. It is an advance toward joining Northern California woodworkers in the fight to save the planet. Of course it will also take the wind out of the timber industry’s publicity sails.”[148]

The Corporate Media’s incompetence (or perhaps subterfuge) in handling the story confused matters for Earth First!. As predicted, many were confused by the incomplete versions of the renunciation they heard or read about, and some were outright hostile. Due to his prominence as a spokesperson for Earth First! in general, Judi Bari had contacted Dave Foreman personally and informed him of her decision. Foreman responded with an emphatic letter opposing Bari’s choice, though he still referred to her as a hero who would be remembered 100 years later.[149] The editors of the Earth First! Journal saw fit to preface their republication of the renunciation statement with a paragraph long disclaimer which began, “In a move that has left some EF!ers confused or dismayed, several West Coast Earth First! groups have renounced tree spiking,” and even listed a Colorado Earth First!er, Michael Robinson, so that those who wished to hear “a compelling letter in opposition to the…renunciation.”[150] This was typical of Earth First!’s openness, but whether intended or not, Earth First!’s lack of unity on this particular decision gave its critics plenty of ammunition to use against it.

At the same time, Earth First!’s Tree Spiking renunciation made the timber industry kulaks even angrier and louder in their denunciation of the environmentalists than ever before, no doubt because Earth First! had stolen their thunder. Speaking for L-P and WECARE, Shep Tucker called it a non-event and declared “(Earth First!) is dealing with semantics…they’re renouncing and not denouncing tree-spiking…They’re still terrorists no matter what they say.”[151]

TEAM spokesman Gary Gundlach, in a guest editorial in the Humboldt Beacon and Fortuna Advance sunk to red baiting, arguing that the tree spiking renunciation was empty and meaningless because Earth First! had “made alliances with the International (sic) Workers of the World who has well known ties with communism.”[152]

Candy Boak spewed forth with her usual venom, regurgitating practically every “unwashed-out-of-town-jobless-hippies-on-drugs” talking pint in the book and further opining, “(Earth First! renouncing tree spiking is) like letting everyone in jail out if they said they would never commit another crime.”[153]

Irv Fletcher, President of the Oregon AFL-CIO Labor Federation argued that Earth First! had to do much more than renounce tree spiking, “They’ve got to renounce damage to workers’ equipment and what they’re doing to workers’ lives.”[154]

Mark Rey, executive director of the American Forest Resource Alliance in Oregon called the renunciation “suspiciously timed” since it came just three weeks after the infamous 60 Minutes broadcast.[155]

Jim McCauley, speaking on behalf of the Associated Oregon Loggers—another Corporate Timber front group—set new standards in hyperbole, comparing the renunciation to “the terrorists in Beirut, Lebanon (announcing that) they’re going to stop car bombings, but they’re still going to take hostages,”[156]

William W. Alexander, in a letter to the Ukiah Daily Journal called the statement “a joke” and also repeated the all too common charge that Earth First! was “a terrorist organization” (even though no Earth First!er had ever been convicted—or even tried—for the crime of terrorism).[157] Michael D Frazier compared the renunciation to the “propaganda broadcasts by Radio Hanoi.”[158] B. J. Bell was even more dismissive and sneering towards Earth First! and environmentalists in particular, denouncing all of them as “hypocrites” since they “live in houses and drive cars” (as if environmentalists want to abolish either).[159]

John Campbell dispensed with the renunciation in his usual dramatic fashion. At the invitation of the Eureka Rotary Club, the P-L exec did his best to declare the North Coast Earth First! and IWW spokespeople as blatant liars. For a visual aide as “proof” of his sincerity, he held up a foot-long section of a redwood log with an eight-inch railroad spike driven into it. A handful of the assembled Rotarians gasped.[160] Campbell then explained that this particular spike, along with two others of identical design, had been discovered in Mill B in Scotia two weeks earlier.[161] He then invoked hypothetical scenarios closely matching the real experiences of George Alexander in Cloverdale three years earlier. Although he didn’t come out and actually name Earth First!, the implications, as far as the assembled crowd was concerned, were clear, and for good measure, he reminded everyone of Darryl Cherney’s “body-bomb” quote from 60 Minutes.[162]

There was, of course, no way to prove that Campbell wasn’t lying. There were was no easy way to determine when the spikes had been driven into the logs, even if he wasn’t. Even if there were, there was no way to prove that it had been done by an Earth First!er, let alone one or more of the supporters of the renunciation. Jeff Ringwald, the company’s safety coordinator admitted that it was uncertain where the tree had been cut or how long it had been stored at the mill. He guessed that the spikes “didn’t appear to have been in the tree for a long period of time,” but by that he meant that the spikes were no more than a few years old, and he further declared, “We’re not accusing anyone,” which seemed to contradict Campbell’s speech to the Rotarians.[163]

Evidently there were others that feared the wind being removed from their sails by the tree spiking renunciation as well. Shortly after the April 11 press conference, some person or persons unknown, referring to themselves as “Arcata Earth First!” published leaflets stating that they disagreed with “non-feral Darryl” and tree spiking renunciation. The fliers described the situation as “an all-out war with the North Coast timber companies.” “Come one, come all”, said the leaflets, “We intend to spike trees, monkeywrench, and even resort to violence if necessary.”[164] Another leaflet entitled “Some Thoughts on Strategy” was anything but, as it rambled on incoherently about sabotage, randomness, and invisibility.[165] The Corporate Press treated the leaflets as genuine, spinning the situation as “infighting within the Redwood Summer Coalition”.[166] Not surprisingly the apologists for corporate timber did so as well, such as D.R. Sendak, who not only dismissed the tree spiking renunciation as “kinder gentler terrorism”:

“(T)hey now say they will emphasize the destruction, of woods equipment belonging to the local timber companies…While this may or may not come as a surprise to you, Ms. Bari, the majority of the logging done on the North Coast is by contract loggers and not directly by the large corporations you seem to despise. The monkey wrenching you encourage does not directly hurt the timber companies, but rather the small loggers who have families, monthly mortgage payments, and the desire to make a living in an honest and hardworking manner…”[167]

Judi Bari, however had nothing to do with these leaflets, and neither did any other genuine Earth First!er. There was then no such thing as Arcata Earth First! nor had their ever really been an Earth First! chapter based there. The only thing closely resembling such was HSU professor Bill Devall who had, long before the days of the Redwood Action Team and Southern Humboldt Earth First!, listed his contact information in the Earth First! Journal.[168] These leaflets were obviously bogus; they spelled Darryl Cherney’s name incorrectly as “Daryl” and incorrectly identified Judi Bari’s home town.[169]

There was little doubt among the members of Earth First! – IWW Local #1 who had been responsible. Bruce Anderson had even gone as far as to publically identify Candy Boak as the culprit, and indeed this was a logical deduction.[170] She had by now engaged in almost two years of attempting to “monkeywrench the moneywrenchers”, even to the point of publishing false press releases during the previous year’s “Earth First! National Tree Sit Week” (Boak’s forgeries proclaimed “National Tree Shit Week.”) However, in this case, Boak was not alone in her efforts. Fellow WECARE and Mothers’ Watch spokeswoman Paula Langanger revealed (later that year to the FBI), that there was a core group of wise use activists who “liked to play little jokes on Earth First!”, including publishing fake press releases. She even named local Corporate Timber apologist Dave Curzon as the author of these particular forgeries.[171]

Yet, the three timber corporations not only treated them as genuine, they actually facilitated their dissemination. Louisiana Pacific went as far as to distribute the fake press releases to their workers at the Samoa pulp mill in a mandatory meeting. There, plant manager Fred Martin encouraged the employees to intimidate environmentalists by attending their meetings “with rolled up sleeves, wearing work boots and hard hats,” according to a union grievance filed against the company for the meeting by Pulp and Paper Workers Local 49.[172] In fact, these leaflets had been distributed to their sawmills all over the U.S. Shep Tucker, however, lied to the press declaring that the company suspected, “a third party, perhaps a splinter group”, knowing full well who had distributed them.[173]

It turns out, the bogus leaflets and press releases had been circulated by Hill & Knowlton as part of their efforts to discredit Forests Forever and anything remotely associated with it.[174] Their fraudulent nature was detectable even by those not intimately familiar with these details, including San Francisco Examiner columnist Rob Morse who declared, “Things are getting pretty weird up there…Not only are the trees being clearcut, some dirty trickster is turning them into fake press releases,” and revealed that Hill & Knowlton had sent them as part of a packet at the behest of Pacific Lumber.[175] This was not just an isolated incident, however. In Olympia, Washington, a major coalition involving Earth First! and the Pulp and Paper Millworkers Union against raw log exports had been undermined when bogus “minutes,” of an environmentalist meeting that never actually took place, which mentioned “sabotage” were circulated.[176] If anyone was engaging in monkeywrenching, it was not Earth First!, but Corporate Timber.

* * * * *

The environmentalists did not let up for a second in exposing the claim that they were anti-jobs as a lie. In response to Louisiana-Pacific’s resumption of aerial Garlon spraying over 1,000 acres in the woods near the Humboldt County communities of Trinidad, Westhaven, and Fieldbrook, a group of protesters locked down to an L-P security gate on Channel Road northeast of Eureka on April 11. Several of them were arrested. The next day, several dozen activists, including Earth First!er Larry Evans, organized yet another protest in Samoa against the corporation demanding an end to the practice. The demonstrators struck a decidedly pro-worker tone by chanting slogans like, “Employ people, not poison!” These calls echoed IWA Local 4-98 representative Tim Skaggs’s call for “manual release” five years previously, but L-P was not budging. Shep Tucker again dismissed the labor intensive practice as being “too costly” (on the order of three to five times as expensive as chemical intensive brush removal). Then, he resorted to scare tactics, claiming that the company had received anonymous bomb threats in connection with the protests, but offered no substantive proof of these.[177]

The next day, the Eureka Times-Standard reported that Pacific Lumber’s sales and operating gains in 1989 had been stronger than ever. The company’s end-of-year financial report to the Securities and Exchange Commission revealed that P-L reported operating income in excess of $59.8 million for the year ending December 31, in comparison to the previous two year’s totals (both of which had been records) of $53.7 million in 1988 and $50.9 million in 1987. Their lumber and log sales were likewise unprecedentedly bountiful, exceeding $171 million in 1989 as opposed to the previous years’ record totals of $160.8 million in 1988 and $150.8 million in 1987. These figures were dampened somewhat by reports of a $7.6 million net loss, including $24.2 million in debt payments. The report also stated, very candidly, that P-L’s management believed that the pending challenges to the company’s timber harvesting plans were “unlikely to have a material adverse effect on the company’s financial condition.” Whether P-L’s statement was an accurate assessment of the company’s predictions or merely a feel-good pronouncement intended to smooth-talk Maxxam’s shareholders didn’t alter the fact that it was substantially inconsistent from its claims that “unwashed-out-of-town-jobless-hippies-on-drugs” were going to destroy the North Coast’s economy.[178]

Revelation such as these only increased support for Redwood Summer. On Saturday, April 21, 1990, students at Lower Lake High School in Ukiah took a page out of Earth First!’s playbook and hung a banner across Perkins Street, one of the main thoroughfares in the heart of town, which read “L-P = LOGGER POVERTY”, a slogan which was later made into a bumper sticker, which was sold fairly widely throughout the county. That same day, over 100 demonstrators in Los Angeles, organized by Earth First! and the IWW, held a protest at Maxxam’s regional office there.[179] Meanwhile, the 400 member strong AWPPW union local based in Toledo, Ohio, who had been on strike against Georgia Pacific since March 2—in coordination with other unions, including the Teamsters—announced that they would be calling for a nationwide boycott of all of the company’s products, including redwood lumber, starting on the Pacific Coast.[180] The potential for an environmentalist and worker alliance grew larger by the day in spite of Corporate Timber’s subterfuge.

* * * * *

Yet, it seemed that the more Earth First! proclaimed its commitment to nonviolence and building bridges with the timber workers, the more violent and dogmatic the rhetoric became from Corporate Timber and its front groups, to the point where it wasn’t entirely clear if the latter would stop at mere rhetoric. As if the Yellow Ribbon Coalition, WECARE, TEAM, and Mothers Watch weren’t rabidly right wing enough, a new faction joined the fray from the Mojave Desert region of southeastern California: the Sahara Club, founded by two southern California dirt bikers, Louis “Phantom Duck” McKey and Rick “Super Hunky” Siemen.[181]

McKey and Siemen had been angered when their annual Barstow to Las Vegas dirt bike race had been prohibited, because such activity devastated fragile desert ecosystems. The two bitterly opposed the new restrictions, and their newly founded group ostensibly organized to keep public lands open to all terrain vehicles (ATVs), certainly an issue that pitted them against just about all environmental organizations, but they also had more sinister aims in mind.[182] To say that the pair disdained environmentalists was the height of understatement. McKey and Siemen had chosen the organization’s name to deliberately thumb their nose at the Sierra Club, whom both founders despised. Their opinion of Greenpeace was no less charitable, once referring to them as “a bunch of lying, evil, cretinous, scum-sucking, larcenous, vile, money-grubbing bastards.”[183] Sieman was not exactly just some random nobody either; he was the senior editor of Dirt Bike Magazine.[184]

The Sahara Club was anything but ethical or polite. Indeed, they were unapologetically violent.[185] The Sahara Club was composed mainly of ATV enthusiasts, but it also had actual terroristic tendencies, and they included distributing a completely fake “Earth First! Terrorism Manual” which supposedly described how to make bombs. They claimed that they had acquired the manual from Earth First! somehow, and were offering it to their readers at a price of $5.[186] Of course, there was no such manual; the closest thing to it was Ecodefense, and that unequivocally warned against use of any explosives.[187] Additionally, the April 1990 edition of the Sahara Club Newsletter republished a list of the entire Earth First! directory from the Mabon / March 21, 1990 edition of the Earth First! Journal, with an introduction which read, “Here is the latest up to the minute data on where the scum are and how to reach them. In many cases, they just have a PO Box listed, but with a little detective work, we’re sure you can track them down and perhaps ‘reason’ with them about the error of their ways.”[188] It was not at all difficult to infer exactly what the Sahara Club meant by that statement, because that same issue also contained the following quotation:

“The Sahara Club needs about a dozen volunteers to form a special division—the Sahara Clubbers! All volunteers should weigh about 200 pounds and have a bad attitude. Big, tall, ugly desert riders preferred…Naturally the ‘Clubbers’ will be expected to honor all laws, but if some Earth First! scum resist a citizen’s arrest in the process, it might be necessary to subdue them prior to turning them over to the authorities.”[189]

It would be easy to dismiss this as simply the acts of loose cannons on the far right, but the Sahara Club was anything but. They worked closely with Candy Boak and agreed to jointly host a workshop on how to further intimidate and harass Earth First!.[190] Boak’s Mothers’ Watch group shared members with WECARE which counted Shep Tucker among its spokespeople. The connections to Corporate Timber may have been tenuous on paper, but in reality it was no difficult task to identify the men behind the Redwood Curtain.

These coalitions weren’t just deadly serious, they were also seriously deadly. Candy Boak continued to telephone Judi Bari and issue veiled threats, but these were never specific. During the third week in April, however, a leaflet consisting of a Xeroxed photograph of Judi Bari, taken from the April 4 Mendocino County Board of Supervisors’ meeting with a riflescope and crosshairs centered on her face, was found taped to the glass door of the MEC. Stapled to the flyer was a yellow ribbon. These flyers eerily matched similar threats issued during the 1960s against leftist activists and organizers by the right wing paramilitary organization known as “the Minute Men”, which had links to COINTELPRO.[191]

This was one of several that were received by Bari, Cherney, and Greg King all within a scope of a few weeks. Bari also received a postcard, postmarked April 10, typed on a manual typewriter and sent to the MEC reading simply, “Judi Bari: get out andgo (sic) bac k (sic) to where you came from…we know every thing (sic)…YOU WON’T GET A SECOND WARNING.”[192]

Judi Bari, Betty Ball, Pam Davis, and Michelle Miller[193] also received a vile, homophobic, and hateful letter which read as follows:

EARTH FIRST LESBIAN:

Dear Judi,

It has come to our attention that you are an Earth First! lesbian whose favorite pastime is to eat box lunches in pajamas.

Judi, this kind of behavior is to be expected of lesbians like you, since we have been observing Earth First! freaks like you for some time. Not only have we been watching you Judi, but we also know and have distributed your phone number to every organized hate group that could possibly have hostile tendencies toward ilk of your kind. No longer can sleazy dikes like you operate with impunity through the guise of anonymity. We know who you are, where you live, and continue to home[sic] in on you…but you don’t know who we are. How does it feel, eco-freak, to have the tables turned?

We’ve also got your “clandestine” publications which detail how to indiscriminately hurt, maim, and kill people who are involved in legitimate, legal activities. Rest assured, Judi, that we shall not be indiscriminate in our actions against the spineless, invertebrate members of Earth First! To the contrary, we will specifically hunt down each and every member like the lesbians you really are.

 —Sincerely,

Committee For The Death of Earth First!, Brought to you by Fed Up Americans for Common Sense.[194]

Darryl Cherney, Bill Devall, Larry Evans, Greg King, and Daniel Barron received similarly themed letters, denouncing them as “Earth First! fellatio experts who suck dicks in outhouses”, with the second and third paragraphs nearly identical to the letters sent to the women (except with the word “homo” in place of “lesbian”). An additional paragraph read, “Another thing that is bothersome, is that if you were truly interested in conservation one would think you would curtail butt slamming your buddy…and spreading AIDS, thereby conserving the lives of the rest of the normal population. Think about it dick breath.”[195] These particular threats bore postmarks from San Diego, making the Sahara Club a likely suspect of their source, but it would be almost impossible to prove it.[196] The Sahara Club was violent and rabidly homophobic, but there were no shortage of other possible sources as well.

All of the death threats bore an eerie resemblance to those issued against other leftist organizations in the past, many of which were later connected to COINTELPRO. For example, on April 25, 1990, the same group of Earth First!ers received a letter purportedly from a bunch of high school students calling themselves the “Tasmanian Teens” that included a page and a half of personal attacks and concluded with a wish that a logger would “just run you over if you get in their way,” and warned them threateningly that “accidents happen.”[197] That wasn’t all. Another anonymous leaflet, featuring a hand drawn hangman’s noose simply titled “Humboldt & Mendocino Countie’s (sic) Welcomes Dirt First to A Mississippi Summer.” Considering that the hangman’s noose was often used by the Ku Klux Klan and other southern based white supremacists to lynch blacks, the implications of the threat were all too chilling.[198]

For the most part, the source of these threats couldn’t be identified, but there were exceptions. At least one group of local thugs known as the “Stompers” (who had in part been inspired by the joint workshop organized by Candace Boak and the Sahara Club and would spend much of the summer terrorizing the Redwood Summer coalition) also sent threatening letters to various Earth First! and/or IWW organizers, such as the following:

We are Humboldt County employees of the Forest Products Industry. We hereby give fair warning to the following:

Darryl Cherney

Greg King

Judi Bari

Regarding “Mississippi Summer” in the Redwoods.

You three are the organizers and will be held personally accountable for injury to any of our fellow workers due to any act by members of Earth First! and including all important scum.

If law enforcement fails, our justice will be swift and very real. We know who you are and where you live. If you want to be a Martyr (sic), we will be happy to oblige. Our tolerance of your harassment has ended.[199]

Greg King took the death threats in stride. Even before the FBI dragnet had entrapped Dave Foreman, Peg Millett, and the others the previous year, he was convinced that he and his comrades were under surveillance. It was the disinformation and the media’s willingness to swallow it that bothered him most.[200]

Meanwhile, before the tree spiking renunciation, Darryl Cherney had never received a death threat. By the end of April he had received thirty-six, and they just kept coming. Cherney forwarded copies of each to the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Department. After sending in a copy of the “Stompers” letter, Cherney called to ask them, in their opinion, if he and his comrades were in any danger. The sergeant who answered agreed that they were and even went as far as to respond that the activists would be lucky if all they received were a sound beating. Cherney then asked what the Humboldt County Sheriffs intended to do about it, to which the latter responded, “we’ll fill out a report.” Stunned, Cherney inquired, “That’s all?” The sergeant answered in the affirmative.[201] Evidently, Cherney reasoned, the Humboldt County sheriffs didn’t like Earth First! anymore than the timber industry did.[202] Cherney then contacted the Eureka office of the FBI who told him that they didn’t have jurisdiction.[203]

Bari had received death threats before in conjunction with her past labor activities, but even these hadn’t been this serious.[204] Bari had contacted Dave Foreman and Foreman recalls that his fellow activist had been “very frightened” about them.[205] In a separate phone conversation with IWW organizer Gary Cox, Bari recalled Cox’s warning about retaliation and asked him if she should take the death threats seriously. Cox responded by telling her that he didn’t think that the makers of the death threats or even the timber industry would go that far.[206] Nevertheless, Judi Bari brought them to the attention of the Mendocino County Sheriff’s department and Ukiah Police, but neither took any action. She reported that Lieutenant Saiterwhite responded dismissively and unsympathetically, and said to her, “We don’t have the manpower. If you show up dead, we’ll investigate.” The Ukiah police later claimed that they put the case on hold because Bari had refused to show them the evidence[207] , which is highly unlikely considering that she shared them with the press.[208] In fact, Bari had refused to surrender the originals, which Ukiah Police Chief Fred Kepplinger claimed hamstrung the investigation, because it prevented them from obtaining evidence from fingerprints. Bari’s refusal was no doubt motivated by her previous attempts to seek justice for the incidents in Philo and Whitehtorn which had been ignored.[209]

Indeed, in spite of all of the denunciations by the powers that be of the comparison between Redwood Summer and the original Mississippi Freedom Summer, the atmosphere on the North Coast was beginning to resemble Mississippi all too closely.

[1] Real American, by Darryl Cherney, 2004

[2] Timber, by Darryl Cherney, 1991

[3] “Timber Media Blitz Seeks Public Favor”, by David Forster, Eureka Times-Standard, March 11, 1990.

[4] For example, in response to “Headwaters Forest = Mumbo Jumbo”, editorial by Glenn Sim­mons, Humboldt Beacon and Fortuna Advance, Feb. 1, 1990, a sneer­ing, condescending, and frankly nasty dismissal of Earth First! and their desire to preserve Headwaters Forest, replete with theocratic Christian Fundamentalist overtones such as, “I did not realize the land had a ‘will’ I thought that was reserved for hu­mans, who were created by God and have souls.”, letter writer Dean C Rudd of Fortuna took Simmons to task for his “shameless corporate bootlicking”, asks Simmons if “Charles Hurwitz faxed it to (him) verbatim.” That Simmons probably believed his own rhetoric is all the more pathetic.

[5] “Timber Media Blitz Seeks Public Favor”, by David Forster, Eureka Times-Standard, March 11, 1990.

[6] “Summer of Disobedience in the Woods”, by Mike Geniella, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, March 13, 1990.

[7] “Redwood Wars Ready to Escalate: Coast Braces for Influx of Protesters”, by Mike Geniella, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, March 25, 1990.

[8] “Summer of Disobedience in the Woods”, by Mike Geniella, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, March 13, 1990.

[9] Harris, David, The Last Stand, New York, NY, Times Books, Random House, 1995, page 298.

[10] “Thousands Visit Logging Conference”, staff report, Willits News, March 21, 1990.

[11] “Ukiah Burning”, by Darryl Cherney and Judi Bari, Earth First! Journal, Beltane / May 1, 1990.

[12] “Thousands Visit Logging Conference”, staff report, Willits News, March 21, 1990.

[13] Cherney and Bari, May 1, 1990, op. cit.

[14] “Activists Arrested at Ukiah Meeting,” staff report, Eureka Times-Standard, March 19, 1990. The Ukiah Daily Journal described the pair as being from El Cerrito, in the San Francisco Bay Area, misspelled Waggie’s name, and did not identify them as loggers. See “Two Arrested in Logging Protest”, Ukiah Daily Journal, March 19, 1990.

[15] “Fire Called Accident”, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, April 5, 1990; “Logging Equipment Fire Accidental”, Ukiah Daily Journal”, April 5, 1990; and “Feller Buncher Burns”, by Lillian Brown, Willits News, April 6, 1990.

[16] Cherney and Bari, May 1, 1990, op. cit.

[17] “Here and There in Mendocino County”, by Bruce Anderson, Anderson Valley Advertiser, April 11, 1990.

[18] “Feller Buncher Burns”, by Lillian Brown, Willits News, April 6, 1990.

[19] Brown, April 6, 1990, op. cit.

[20] “With a Little Help From…”, anonymous letter to the editor, Anderson Valley Advertiser, April 18, 1990.

[21] “The Earth First! Car Bombing”, by Judi Bari, Earth First! Journal, Brigid / February 2, 1994.

[22] Colemanhoax.info, response to Kate Coleman, page 143.

[23] See, for example, “Other Forms of Protest needed”, letter to the editor by Leonard Shumard Jr., Eureka Times-Standard, March 4, 1990.

[24] “Short Stuff”, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, March 13, 1990.

[25] “Was it a Government Plot?”, by Richard Johnson, Mendocino Country Environmentalist, May 29, 1990.

[26] Foreman, Dave and “Bill Haywood” editors; forward![sic] by Edward Abbey, Ecodefense: a Field Guide to Monkeywrenching; (third edition)., Chico, CA., Abzug Press, 1993, page 10. Some might quibble over the inclusion of the word “usually” opening up a wide latitude for monkeywrenchers to use explosives anyway, but there is no entry in the book that calls for their usage.

[27] Foreman, Dave, op. cit., passim.

[28] “1990: A Year in the Life of Earth First!”, by Judi Bari, Anderson Valley Advertiser, January 2, 1991.

[29] “Earth First! Members to Surrender”, by Mike Geniella, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, March 20, 1990.

[30] “The Boys Go To Jail”, by Lincoln Pierce, Country Activist, April 1990.

[31] Harris, David, The Last Stand, New York, NY, Times Books, Random House, 1995, pages 300-01.

[32] Harris, op. cit., page 301.

[33] Harris, op. cit., page 301.

[34] “Redwood Wars Ready to Escalate: Coast Braces for Influx of Protesters”, by Mike Geniella, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, March 25, 1990.

[35] “An Interview With Redwood Summer Strategist and EF! Musician Darryl Cherney”, by Sharon Seidenstein, Ecology Center Newsletter, October 1990.

[36] “Mississippi Summer in the Redwoods: Freedom Riders Needed to Save the Forest”, By Judi Bari, Darryl Cherney, Pam Davis, Greg King, Mike Roselle, et. al., Anderson Valley Advertiser, April 25, 1990 and Earth First! Journal, May 1, 1990.

[37] Bari, et. al., April 25, 1990, op. cit.

[38] Earth First! Nonviolence Code, adopted early May 1990, featured on various leaflets.

[39] Bari, et. al., April 25, 1990, op. cit.

[40] “Lisa Henry on her 22nd Birthday”, Lisa Henry interviewed by Beth Bosk, New Settler Interview, January 1991.

[41] Bosk, January 1991, op. cit.

[42] “Fortuna Draws Mild HSU Rebuke on Protest Issue”, staff report, Eureka Times-Standard, March 20, 1990.

[43] “Fortuna Wants End to Protests: City Fearful Anti-Logging Actions Could Spur Violence”, by Ed Lion, Eureka Times-Standard, March 20, 1990.

[44] Geniella, March 25, 1990, op. cit.

[45] Lion, March 20, 1990, op. cit.

[46] “Fortuna Draws Mild HSU Rebuke on Protest Issue”, staff report, Eureka Times-Standard, March 20, 1990.

[47] Bari, et. al., April 25, 1990, op. cit.

[48] Geniella, March 25, 1990, op. cit.

[49] Geniella, March 25, 1990, op. cit.

[50] Bari, et. al., April 25, 1990, op. cit.

[51] Bari, et. al., April 25, 1990, op. cit.

[52] “Workers, Corporations, and Redwood Summer: Whose Side Are We On?”, by the Redwood Summer Coalition excerpt from the Redwood Summer Handbook, second edition, ca June 1990. Emphasis in the original.

[53] “Logging Protesters Claim Pattern of Violence”, by Mike Geniella, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, March 28, 1990.

[54] “Lumber Showdown Feared This Summer”, by David Forster, Eureka Times-Standard, April 22, 1990.

[55] “Lost in the Woods”, by Greg Goldin, Los Angeles Weekly, September 7, 1990.

[56] “Redwood Summer Timeline”, by Karen Pickett, Earth First! Journal, Samhain / November 1, 1990

[57] “Harris, op. cit., page 310-11.

[58] Deal, Carl, The Greenpeace Guide to Anti-Environmental Organizations, Berkeley, CA., Odonian Press - The Real Story series, 1993, pages 7.

[59] “Harris, op. cit., page 310-11.

[60] “Actions, Words Denote Hostility”, editorial by Glenn Simmons, Humboldt Beacon and Fortuna Advance, March 29, 1990.

[61] “Timber Workers Demonstrate”, by Thomas Johnson, Humboldt Beacon and Fortuna Advance, March 29, 1990

[62] “WECARE About Violence…”, by WECARE, reprinted in Country Activist, June 1990.

[63] Ibid.

[64] Bari, February 2, 1994, op. cit.

[65] “Here and There in Mendocino County”, by Bruce Anderson, Anderson Valley Advertiser, March 28, 1990.

[66] “A Word from Mr. Sell-Out”, letter to the editor by Don Nelson, Anderson Valley Advertiser, April 11, 1990; the title of the letter is obviously an addition by Bruce Anderson.

[67] “Bruce Anderson’s Reply”, by Bruce Anderson, Anderson Valley Advertiser, April 11, 1990.

[68] “Timber Talks Dying, Lawmakers Say: Environmentalists Take No-Deal Stance”, by Mike Geniella, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, March 28, 1990.

[69] “L-P May Cut Shift at Ukiah Mill: 200 Workers Facing Layoffs Countywide”, by Maureen Connor-Rice, Ukiah Daily Journal, March 28, 1990; “LP Cutting 195 Jobs: Announcement Shocks Timber Communities”, by Mike Geniella, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, March 29, 1990; and “Valley L-P Mill Closures Shock Lawmakers and Locals”, by Keith Michaud, Fort Bragg Advocate-News, April 5, 1990.

[70] “Stockholders Get Better News: L-P Reports Record Earnings”, by Mike Geniella, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, March 29, 1990.

[71] “Louisiana-Pacific Layoffs Announced in County”, staff report, Willits News, March 30, 1990.

[72] Bari, January 2, 1991, op. cit.

[73] Geniella, March 29, 1990, op. cit.

[74] “Philo Mill to Close, Workers Told”, by Keith Michaud, Ukiah Daily Journal, April 13, 1990; (Redwood Empire owned this one); “Landmark Phil Mill Shuts; 35 Out of Work”, by Mike Geniella, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, April 14, 1990; “Philo Mill Closes, Leaves 40 Workers Without Jobs”, by Keith Michaud, Mendocino Beacon, April 26, 1990.

[75] “Miller-Rellim Denies closure Plans, by Andrew Oppmann Jr., Crescent City Triplicate, May 9, 1990.

[76] “In Timber Battles, Workers Always Lose”, editorial, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, March 30, 1990.

[77] “Ecologists Blamed for Timber Layoffs”, by Jeff Pelline, San Francisco Chronicle, March 29, 1990, and “Eminent Domain Seizure Proposed”, by Les and Genny Nuckolls, Willits News, April 6, 1990.

[78] “Trucker Says, ‘Good Riddance’”, by Mike Geniella, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, April 16, 1990.

[79] “Automation Taking 15 Jobs at L-P Mill” (“L-P Letter Points to Automation: 15 Workers to be Gone in 1st Round of Layoffs” in some editions), by Mike Geniella, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, April 2, 1990.

[80] Geniella, March 29, 1990, op. cit.

[81] Michaud, April 5, 1990, op. cit.

[82] Michaud, April 5, 1990, op. cit.

[83] “Hauser Blasts L-P’s Sawmill Closure Plan”, by Andrew W Oppmann Jr., Crescent City Triplicate, April 4, 1990.

[84] Geniella, April 16, 1990, op. cit.

[85] Geniella, March 29, 1990, op. cit.

[86] “Louisiana-Pacific Action Condemned”, by Keith Michaud and Lois O’Rourke, Fort Bragg Advocate-News, April 5, 1990.

[87] Geniella, April 16, 1990, op. cit. Emphasis added.

[88] “Agreeing With Tucker’s View”, letter to the editor by Don Stamps, Eureka Times-Standard, February 23, 1990.

[89] “Here and There in Mendocino County”, by Bruce Anderson, Anderson Valley Advertiser, January 24, 1990.

[90] “A Logger Speaks Out – An Interview with Walter Smith”, by Bruce Anderson, Anderson Valley Advertiser, July 4, 1990.

[91] Bruce Anderson, January 24, 1990, op. cit.

[92] Bruce Anderson, July 4, 1990, op. cit.

[93] Bruce Anderson, January 24, 1990, op. cit.

[94] “L-P Critic Sells Logging Firm, Cites Pressure”, by Mike Geniella, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, January 17, 1990. L-P of course denied that they had put any pressure on Smith.

[95] “Redwood Summer Bombing: Police Framing, Not Investigating”, by Richard Johnson, Mendocino Country Environmentalist, July 1, 1990.

[96] Bari, January 2, 1991, op. cit.

[97] “Louisiana-Pacific Roasted by Activists”, by Rob Anderson, Anderson Valley Advertiser, April 4, 1990.

[98] “Here and there in Mendocino County”, by Bruce Anderson, Anderson Valley Advertiser, April 4, 1990.

[99] Geniella, March 29, 1990, op. cit.

[100] “Earth First! Protests L-P Layoffs; Mill Irked at Criticism: Still ‘Good Citizen’”, by Mike Geniella, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, April 4, 1990.

[101] Rob Anderson, April 4, 1990, op. cit.

[102] “Eminent Domain Seizure Proposed”, by Les and Genny Nuckolls, Willits News, April 6, 1990.

[103] “Louisiana-Pacific Action Condemned”, by Keith Michaud and Lois O’Rourke, Fort Bragg Advocate-News, April 5, 1990.

[104] “‘Stop L-P’ – Supervisors Told”, by Tom Fristoe, Mendocino Observer, April 5, 1990. It should be noted that Darryl Cherney’s first name is misspelled “Darrel” in the article.

[105] Rob Anderson, April 4, 1990, op. cit.

[106] Nuckolls and Nuckolls, April 6, 1990, op. cit.

[107] “Board Asked to Take Over L-P: Request Triggered by Cutbacks”, by Keith Michaud, Ukiah Daily Journal, April 3, 1990.

[108] Fristoe, April 5, 1990, op. cit.

[109] Rob Anderson, April 4, 1990, op. cit.

[110] Nuckolls and Nuckolls, April 6, 1990, op. cit.

[111] “Earth First! Sings Protest at L-P Layoffs”, (“Earth First! Protests L-P Layoffs: Mill Irked at Criticism: Still ‘Good Citizen’” in some editions), by Mike Geniella, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, April 4, 1990.

[112] Bari, January 2, 1991, op. cit.

[113] “Bona Fide Labor Leader”, letter to the editor, by Don Nelson, Anderson Valley Advertiser, April 11, 1990; Willits News, April 11, 1990; Mendocino Commentary, April 12, 1990; Ukiah Daily Journal, April 13, 1990; North Coast News, April 19, 1990; and Country Activist, May 1990.

[114] “Bruce Anderson’s Reply”, by Bruce Anderson, Anderson Valley Advertiser, April 11, 1990.

[115] “Face Timber Facts”, guest editorial by Walter Smith, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, April 8, 1990.

[116] “The Redwood Summer Coalition”, from an undated IWW leaflet, published, ca. May 1990, courtesy of Allan Anger’s personal archives.

[117] “Earth First! Replies to Critics”, by Judi Bari, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, April 10, 1990.

[118] Bari, April 10, 1990, op. cit.

[119] “Who Elected Earth First!”, by Donald R Nelson, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, April 26, 1990.

[120] Don Nelson, April 26, 1990, op. cit.

[121] Don Nelson, April 26, 1990, op. cit.

[122] “Nelson’s Disservice”, letter to the editor by M. Martin, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, May 23, 1990.

[123] “L-P: Our Largest Unemployer”, by Michael B. Ward, Anderson Valley Advertiser, April 11, 1990, and Ukiah Daily Journal, April 13, 1990.

[124] “Here and There in Mendocino County”, by Bruce Anderson, Anderson Valley Advertiser, April 25, 1990

[125] “My Resignation”, letter to the editor by Don Nelson, Mendocino Beacon, June 3, 1990.

[126] “Thanks Don”, letter to the editor by Roanne Withers, Anderson Valley Advertiser, May 2, 1990.

[127] “Maintain Order”, letter to the editor by Bill Evans, Willits News, May 9, 1990.

[128] “Nelson back on Democratic Committee”, by Will Behr, Mendocino Beacon, May 31, 1990.

[129] “Sierra Club Cuts Radicals’ Plans for Logging Protest”, by Mike Geniella, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, April 15, 1990.

[130] “Fight Over Mississippi Support; Splinter Group at ‘War’ Against Companies”, by Mike Geniella, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, April 17, 1990.

[131] “Sierra Club Opposes Redwood Summer”, Willits News, June 13, 1990.

[132] “‘Mississippi Summer’ Stirs Sierra Club Split; Local Leaders Irked by Press Release”, by Judy Nichols, North Coast News, April 25, 1990.

[133] Geniella, April 15, 1990, op. cit.

[134] Geniella, April 17, 1990, op. cit.

[135] “Here and There in Mendocino County”, by Bruce Anderson, Anderson Valley Advertiser, April 25, 1990.

[136] “Wishing Earth First! Success”, by Ron Guenther and Betty Ball, Mendocino Beacon, April 26, 1990.

[137] Geniella, April 15, 1990, op. cit.

[138] “‘Mississippi Summer’ Losing Some Support” (in some editions, “Redwood Radicals Losing Support”), by Mike Geniella, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, April 26, 1990, and “Summer’ Support Being lost”, Ukiah Daily Journal, April 26, 1990.

[139] “Workers of the World: Wake Up!”, letter to the editor, by Ken Cleaverwood, Anderson Valley Advertiser, May 2, 1990.

[140] “In the Middle of Run Away History: Judi Bari, Earth First! Organizer, Mississippi Summer in the California Redwoods”, interview by Beth Bosk, New Settler Interview, issue #49, May 1990.

[141] This statement was printed in the Mendocino Commentary, April 12, 1990; the Mendocino County Observer, April 12, 1990; the Earth First! Journal, Beltane / May 1, 1990; and the Country Activist, June 1990. It was announced beforehand in “Timber Activists ax Tree-Spiking: Nonviolent Protests Set for Summer”, by Mike Geniella, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, April 9, 1990. Emphasis added.

[142] “Earth First! Vows to Continue Sabotage”, by David Forster, Eureka Times-Standard, April 12, 1990.

[143] “Timber Activists ax Tree-Spiking: Nonviolent Protests Set for Summer”, by Mike Geniella, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, April 9, 1990; “Environmental Group Says it Won’t Spike Trees”, by Elliot Diringer, San Francisco Chronicle, Wednesday, April 11, 1990; “Earth First! Renounces Tree Spiking”, McClatchy News Services, republished in the San Francisco Examiner, April 13, 1990; “Activists Denounce Spiking”, by Keith Michaud, Ukiah Daily Journal, April 11, 1990; and “Activists Call for Nonviolent Protest”, staff report, Willits News, April 11, 1990.

[144] Additional Release by Darryl Cherney, Mendocino Commentary, April 12, 1990.

[145] “Earth First! Vows to Continue Sabotage”, by David Forster, Eureka Times-Standard, April 12, 1990.

[146] “Eco-Terrorists Abandon Spikes”, editorial, San Francisco Chronicle, April 16, 1990.

[147] “Earth First! and COINTELPRO”, by Leslie Hemstreet, Z Magazine, July / August 1990.

[148] Additional Release by Darryl Cherney, Mendocino Commentary, April 12, 1990.

[149] “Review: Dave Foreman’s Confessions of an Ecowarrior”, by Judi Bari, Anderson Valley Advertiser, April 4, 1991.

[150] “Tree Spiking Renounced Behind Redwood Curtain”, staff report, Earth First! Journal, Beltane / May 1 , 1990.

[151] “Activists Denounce Spiking”, by Keith Michaud, Ukiah Daily Journal, April 11, 1990.

[152] “EarthFirst! (sic) Followers Say Nothing”, guest editorial by Gary Gundlach, Humboldt Beacon and Fortuna Advance, April 19, 1990.

[153] “Earth First!”, letter to the editor by Candace Boak, San Francisco Chronicle, April 16, 1990.

[154] “Timber Spiking to Stop: Announcement Called ‘Non-Event’”, AP Wire and staff report, Ukiah Daily Journal, April 12, 1990.

[155] Forster, April 12, 1990, op. cit.

[156] “Timber Spiking to Stop: Announcement Called ‘Non-Event’”, AP Wire and staff report, Ukiah Daily Journal, April 12, 1990.

[157] “Earth First! Exposed”, letter to the editor by William W Alexander, Ukiah Daily Journal, April 13, 1990.

[158] “Insincere Propaganda”, letter to the editor by Michael D. Frazier, Ukiah Daily Journal, April 16, 1990.

[159] “A Few Definitions”, letter to the editor by B. J. Bell, Ukiah Daily Journal, April 18, 1990.

[160] Harris, op. cit., pages 305-07. Ecodefense says nothing about the use of railroad spikes.

[161] “PL Millworkers Discover 3 Spikes”, by Lisa Shaw, Eureka Times-Standard, April 24, 1990; “Spikes Found in Old Redwood at Scotia Mill”, by Mike Geniella, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, April 25, 1990; “Spikes Found in Scotia Redwood Log”, Willits News, April 27, 1990; and “PL Claims Trees Spiked”, EcoNews, May 1988.

[162] Harris, op. cit., pages 305-07. Ecodefense says nothing about the use of railroad spikes.

[163] “Spikes Damage Sawmill Blades”, by Mike Geniella, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, April 25, 1990.;By contrast, Campbell had made no such wild proclamations the previous year, in March of 1989. Then, an unknown perpetrator set off smoke bombs in the P-L sales office in Mill Valley, and an anonymous caller describing themselves as “Smokers for Wilderness” took credit for the incident, but the person or persons responsible were never positively identified, and the incident was more or less forgotten, as detailed in 10.0pt;“PL: Follow The Bouncing THPs”, by Andy Alm, EcoNews, April 1989.

[164] “Fight Over ‘Mississippi’ Support: Splinter Group at ‘War’ Against Companies”, by Mike Geniella, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, April 17, 1990.

[165] “Earth First! Activists Call Fliers Phony”, by David Forster, Eureka Times-Standard, April 20, 1990.

[166] “Infighting Threatens Environmental Wins”, editorial, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, April 20, 1990.

[167] Letter to the editor, by D. R. Sendek, Willits News, April 15, 1990; Santa Rosa Press Democrat, April 23, 1990; Humboldt Beacon and Fortuna Advance, April 26, 1990; and Ukiah Daily Journal, April 27, 1990.

[168] “Earth First! Activists Call Fliers Phony”, by David Forster, Eureka Times-Standard, April 20, 1990.

[169] Bari, February 2, 1994, op. cit.

[170] “Here and There in Mendocino County”, by Bruce Anderson, Anderson Valley Advertiser, April 25, 1990.

[171] Bari, February 2, 1994, op. cit.

[172] Bari, February 2, 1994, op. cit.

[173] “Threats to Activist Probed”, by Mike Geniella, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, April 21, 1990.

[174] “The Judi Bari Bombing Revisited: Big Timber, Public Relations, and the FBI”, by Nicholas Wilson, Albion Monitor, May 28, 1999.

[175] Column by Rob Morse, San Francisco Examiner, April 25, 1990.

[176] “Old Growth vs. Old Mindsets”, by Mitch Freedman, Earth First! Journal, Beltane / May 1, 1989.

[177] “Dozens Rally at L-P Pulp Mill to Protest Herbicide Spraying,” by David Forester, Eureka Times-Standard, April 13, 1990.

[178] “P-L Sales, Income Gains in 1989 Strongest in Years, Report Says”, by Charles Winkler, Eureka Times-Standard, April 13, 1990.

[179] “Los Angeles EF! Enjoys a Redwood Summer”, by Peter Bralver, Earth First! Journal, Samhaim / September 22, 1990.

[180] “Georgia-Pacific Strikers Call for National Boycott”, UPI Wire, Eureka Times-Standard, April 22, 1990.

[181] “Sahara Club Attacks EF!”, Earth First! Journal, Litha / June 21, 1990.

[182] Ibid.

[183] Deal, 1993, op. cit., pages 87-88.

[184] “Here and There in Mendocino County”, by Bruce Anderson, Anderson Valley Advertiser, September 26, 1990.

[185] Deal, 1993, op. cit., pages 87-88.

[186] Bari, February 2, 1994, op. cit.

[187] “Community Under Siege”, by Judi Bari, Anderson Valley Advertiser, May 8, 1991.

[188] “Sahara Club Attacks EF!”, Earth First! Journal, Litha / June 21, 1990.

[189] “The Palco Papers”, by Judi Bari, Anderson Valley Advertiser, March 27, 1991.

[190] Bari, February 2, 1994, op. cit.

[191] “Here and There in Mendocino County”, by Bruce Anderson, Anderson Valley Advertiser, April 25, 1990.

[192] Bari, February 2, 1994, op. cit.

[193] “Earth First! and COINTELPRO”, by Leslie Hemstreet, Z Magazine, July / August 1990.

[194] Author unknown; reprinted in the Anderson Valley Advertiser, May 30, 1990 for reference.

[195] Hemstreet, op. cit.

[196] “Bomb Injured Activists Arrested”, by Boni Brewer, Contra Costa Times, May 26, 1990.

[197] Hemstreet, op. cit.

[198] “Terrorist Strikes Earth First!”, by Alexander Cockburn, Anderson Valley Advertiser, May 30, 1990. The image is featured in this publication as well.

[199] “Macho Men Defend Basic Rights”, author unknown, reprinted in the Anderson Valley Advertiser, May 30, 1990 for reference; emphasis in the original.

[200] Harris, op. cit., page 315-16.

[201] Harris, op. cit., page 315-16.

[202] Hemstreet, op. cit.

[203] Harris, op. cit., page 315-16.

[204] “An Interview With Redwood Summer Strategist and EF! Musician Darryl Cherney”, by Sharon Seidenstein, Ecology Center Newsletter, October 1990.

[205] “Earth First! Friends Insist Victims Can’t Be Suspects”, by Eric Brazil and Jane Kay, San Francisco Examiner, May 25, 1990.

[206] Interview with Gary Cox, September 25, 2009. In retrospect, Cox regrets having said this, wishing he had taken the death threats more seriously, even though he was far removed from the action.

[207] “Pipe Bomb Blast: 2 Earth First! People Injured; Car Destroyed – Injured Activists are Organizers of Summerlong Protests”, by Judy Ronnigen and Paul Grabowicz, Oakland Tribune, May 25, 1990.

[208] Bari, February 2, 1994, op. cit.

[209] “Bari Had Started Laughing Off Death Threats”, by Keith Michaud, Ukiah Daily Journal, May 25, 1990.

Tags: Redwood UprisingJudi BariSteve OngerthIndustrial Workers of the World (IWW)Earth First!Earth First! - IWW Local 1Redwood SummerDarryl CherneyGreg KingDon Nelsontimber workersGene Lawhorntree spikinggreen unionismgreen syndicalismBig Greentrade unions

Call for action March 8th, 2024 – International Working Women’s Day

Bagnolet, February 22, 2024. This March 8, International Working Women’s Day, as a result of our 8th International Conference that took place in Colombia in December 2023, La Via Campesina has been strengthened by its clear proposals based on the Food sovereignty defense and the acknowledgement of the fundamental role of the women in this process, as well as committed to the strengthen of the Peasant and Popular Feminism in the fight against patriarchy and for the equality, bearing in mind that diversity is in the center of Food sovereignty in all the territories.

Along these 31 years, we have been consolidating a unity movement for the transformation, we have been organizing, opening and deepening paths for the struggle that reflect our reality, our demands and many realities for women in the peasant territories.

Nowadays, the Peasant and Popular Feminism is our tactic for the women living in the fields, the waters, the woods, the deserts, the savannah, the moors, the wetlands and the mountains can carry on their struggles against the violences and the patriarchy in our territories, in our communities, organizations and countries, considering our realities as peasant women, recognizing our strengths and identifying our common enemies.

As part of this day of action, we denounce all kinds of violence, evils of the capitalist and patriarchal system that exploits and oppress women, we manifest against the femicides as the most ruthless expression of violence expressed over the women, childhoods and diversities bodies. Every year, dozens of thousands of girls and women, included trans women are murdered around the world because of their gender and even more are at risk of dying because of gender violence because the states fail to fulfill their duty to effectively protect life of survivors and ensure their safety.

In the face of the alarming rise of the right wing and the conservative speeches, rights setbacks, of the fascism and neo-fascist threatens, with wars, occupations, the displacement and the capitalist looting of the fields in Palestine, Haiti, Nigeria, Peru and Ecuador, in tandem with the criminal action of the multinationals and the judiciary system that hijack our food systems around the world. We keep claiming that food sovereignty is only possible with peasants and that we are responsible for lowering the temperature of the Earth. We are the responsible for feeding the peoples and we are who build societies of peace and social justice!

Since La Via Campesina adopted the policy and ethics of the food sovereignty, claiming the rights of the peoples to define their own agricultural and food policies, the peasant women have had a key role in making this principle a reality within their communities and territories and presenting it as a concrete alternative for the peasantry in face of the food, environmental and social crises that promotes a fair and supportive trade.

However, we keep raising our voice denouncing and resisting against:

• The states that use the food as war weapon, rising the misery and hunger. Food security does exist without food sovereignty!
• The capitalist model of agro-hydro-mining business that commodifies the food, the soil, that exploits the underground with mining, opening furrows in our land and provokes environmental and social destruction.
• The alarming migrations wave seeking for jobs and dignity in a world that exploits the labor force.
• The religious actions that in name of the culture threaten the life and freedom of women and diversities around the world. 
• We denounce the accomplice judiciary system that promotes the impunity and re-victimizes survivors of violence.
• We denounce the racism still rooted that justifies the racial superiority and makes even more vulnerable the peasant, black and indigenous women.
• The genocide of our ancestral peoples and communities, their values, their rights and their forms of organization.
• The violations, the early marriages and the violence against the childhood. Girls are not mothers! Sexual and reproductive rights and sexual education are needed.

As a peasant movement, we will continue to strengthen the need for equality, the rural-urban alliances that not only challenges us to build new gender relations between human beings, but also takes care the mother earth. Our Peasant and Popular Feminism values the peasant agriculture as a driving force for food sovereignty and challenges the exploitation process of people, the cornering of the soil and the water and the colonizing extractivism. For us, the soil and the territories are life spaces where we want to build healthy relations free of agrochemicals and violences.

We commit ourselves to continue to be organized and united being the first resistance front against the extractivism, the capitalism and the patriarchy in our territories, to preserve biodiversity, the seeds, our common goods and our ancestral knowledge. We continue building the movement, revolutionizing souls and consciences, as well as fighting for the popular sovereignty, for the food sovereignty, for our peoples and communities sovereignty and for the women’s sovereignty.

We reassure our Declaration of the 6th International Women’s Assembly of La Via Campesina as a political tool that gathers our challenges, our demands and guides our actions in the next period.

Join our Global Day of Action:

• Download your media kit and adapt our official poster to your local languages to widen our message in the territories
• Share your actions, declarations, posters, photographs and videos to communications@viacampesina.org we would like to organize a padlet    https://padlet.com/lvcweb/8m2024-la-via-campesina-tpl9hrx7hcgd09lt with the actions around the world.
• Follow us on social media with the hashtags: #8M24 #FeminismoCampesinoYPopular #MujeresEnLucha #SoberaníaAlimentariaYa #BastadeViolenciaContraLasMujeres 
• Tag us on social media:
  Facebook : @viacampesinaOFFICIAL
  Instagram: @la_via_campesina_official
  Twitter : @viacampesinaFR

 

The post #8M24 – “With conviction we build Food sovereignty and we fight against the crises and the violences” appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

Family Farm Defenders Solidarity Statement on Gaza

Feb. 14Th, 2024 | The human right to food is sacred and protected under international law. Family Farm Defenders maintains the principles of food sovereignty, including the right to food, as a guide to our response to ongoing and escalating violence, destruction, and loss of life in Gaza, the West Bank, and Israel.

Therefore, in good conscience, we must speak up now, joining the millions of voices from around the world who are calling for an immediate ceasefire and an end to the suffering and starvation that is being inflicted on the civilian population of Gaza.

Family Farm Defenders is proud to be part of a global movement advocating for food justice and human rights. John Kinsman, one of our founders, was a tireless champion of civil rights, social justice, and food sovereignty both in the US and around the world. As he once stated, “the seven principles of food sovereignty are the finest recipe for global food, social and environmental justice that exist today.”

Due to decades of occupation and restrictions imposed by Israel, the ability of Palestinian farmers, fishers, and pastoralists to feed their people, has been greatly diminished.

Since the horrific attacks on Israeli communities on October 7, 2023, Israel’s military response, with US support, has created a humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Medical supplies, food, clean water, and energy are all in very short supply. The ongoing bombardments and attacks have shattered the lives of its 2.3 million residents and killed over 28,000.

Food production and distribution has been severely affected. In addition to United Nations agencies, the Union of Agricultural Work Committees (UAWC), a winner of the USFSA Food Sovereignty Prize in 2014 and member of La Via Campesina, has created a “Stop Gaza Starvation” campaign. Members have put their own lives at risk to provide food and other supplies.

Even so, the situation is increasingly dire, marked by widespread hunger, relentless blockades, and continuous bombardment.

In January, the International Court of Justice ruled Israel must take all possible measures to prevent acts of genocide. La Via Campesina stated that “this ICJ decision is an initial step in holding the occupation accountable for its heinous crimes and unprecedented use of starvation as a weapon in its war against civilians in Gaza.”

For the people of Gaza, time is running out.

In fact, now, in early February 2024, instead of responding to the ICJ ruling to prevent genocide, Israel is ramping up its attacks and has begun to implement plans for a ground invasion of the last “safe zone” – Rafah – which has become a massive refugee camp. Experts are warning of a humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza with millions of people facing starvation, the cruelty of which is unimaginable.

Family Farm Defenders recognizes our responsibility to speak for peace and justice, for food sovereignty, and for human rights. We call on the United States government to demand an immediate ceasefire, the safe release of all hostages and political prisoners, and the stoppage of its own military support to any country or entity violating international law. Our government must end its imperialist ambitions and join the global community, accepting its humanitarian duty, and work toward a just and lasting peace in all regions of the world. Ceasefire, now!

For those interested in supporting food assistance to folks in Gaza, we suggest donating to: https://stopgazastarvation.org/ 

The post Family Farm Defenders :Food is Not a Weapon appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

By Hillary Wainright - Transnational Institute, February 21, 2024

It’s April 2020. In the UK, the COVID-19 pandemic was at its height. Ventilators were running out. Prime Minister Boris Johnson was calling for ‘Our Great British Companies’ to come to the rescue and manufacture emergency supplies. Apart from existing producers of ventilators, there was little response. But at the Airbus factory in North Wales, the well-organised Unite branch representing over 4,000 workers, took matters into their own hands and, in a matter of weeks, led the conversion of the factory’s research and development facility into an assembly line producing components for up to 15,000 ventilators for the National Health Service (NHS).

‘Without the union’, commented the Unite convenor, Darren Reynolds, ‘it would have been chaos, lots of problems without any procedure to resolve them. We’ve built up a tried and tested organisation and established procedures for solving them’. He cites the all-important role of workers’ elected health and safety representatives in turning the Welsh government-funded Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre (part of the Airbus site) into an adapted sterile environment. ‘Our 60 health and safety reps have been able to pre-empt the problems and solve them in advance’, he explains.

In this way, 500 Airbus workers, previously producing aircraft wings, turned their skills to producing ventilator parts, meeting social needs, securing jobs, and strengthening their union organisation in the process.

The organisation of the conversion process, the speed at which it was achieved, and the capacity of the workforce to collaborate to meet the challenge, were impressive. This was largely due to the role of the union branch and its shop stewards who organised the aircraft-turned-ventilator workers and their determination to extend collective bargaining beyond wages and conditions to change the product on which they worked. 

Moreover, in the context of a crisis in the supply of ventilators to meet the needs of COVID patients, and a call from a Conservative Prime Minister for companies to make them, management could hardly resist the union’s public-spirited efforts to find a solution. Finally, and especially significant for today’s climate emergency, this worker-led experience of successful industrial conversion also offers a glimpse of the potential role of workplace trade unions in moving from a high-carbon to low-carbon economy without job losses. At the very least, the experience points to the importance of a well-unionised workplace for the achieving such a transition.

Efforts to extend collective bargaining to include the purpose of production

a) The Lucas Aerospace workers’ plan for ‘socially useful production’

A workplace of unionised workers, able to extend the function of collective bargaining, is the exception to the rule in neoliberal post-industrial Britain, after some 40 years of attacks on employment rights and on the very existence of trade unions. In the late 1970s, however, shop floor trade union power, in engineering especially, had gained sufficient strength to question management’s investment decisions, especially those involving factory closures and major redundancies. When corporate management were ‘rationalising’ investments and consequently threatening job cuts and factory closures, they met with organised resistance from workers in the regions and industries most under threat.

‘Don’t Let the North East Die’ was the slogan of a strong regional movement of trade unions and community organisations. Workers from factories along the Tyne – Vickers Engineering, Scott Hunter Ship Building, NEI Parsons – came together with alternative proposals, demonstrating that their skills, far from being ‘redundant’, had socially useful purposes. A similar movement emerged in Coventry, supported by an influential Trades Council, while a group of labour movement researchers brought together shop stewards from the main workplaces of this once thriving industrial city. Here, too, shop stewards’ committees – Chryslers, Alfred Herbert’s Machine Tools, Jaguar, and many more – were defending jobs with positive proposals for the future of their employment. At that time, decarbonisation was seldom, if ever, a consideration. However, energy-saving and pollution-avoiding products were high on the list of their proposals.

These campaigns of the 1970s may only have delayed closures and job losses. But their efforts established a precedent and a collective memory – which can, decades on still be an inspiration, especially when there are few alternatives in current mainstream political debate. 

In the aftermath of the pandemic, manufacturing industries, such as aerospace, were slow to recover their pre-COVID levels. But many trade union and green activists drew on the memory of ‘the Lucas plan’ as an inspiration for what could be done and contacted the remaining Lucas Aerospace shop stewards to tell their story. ‘The Lucas Aerospace workers’ alternative corporate plan for socially useful production’ (to give it its full name) was a notably coherent initiative in the 1970s that still reverberates, especially for those attempting change in priorities of production.

Thatcher’s victory and the destruction that it wrought

Before exploring this experience in more depth, we need to stand back for moment. The 1970s was fifty years ago. Fifty years which has been no mere passing of time. Since 1979 the conditions under which workers have struggled simply for their livelihood, let aside control over the product of their work, has become very tough indeed. In 1970s trade unions were at the historic height of their collective strength. Since then they have declined, at least in terms of membership numbers, to the levels of the 1930’s, the decade of poverty and despair.

Thatcher’s government used the might of the state – both its violence and its legal apparatus to wage a determined, ideologically driven class war, against organised labour, the welfare state and local government. Bonds of solidarity and mutuality were pulverised beyond recognition. Today with manufacturing companies controlled by international hedge funds, however, the balance of power between highly mobile capital and fragmented localised labour is overwhelmingly unfavourable. Workers cannot replicate an initiative from the 1970s’ but they can learn from it; it gives them a glimpse of what might be possible.

The Lucas Plan: A laboratory for transforming production

In 1978, the Lucas Aerospace Shop Stewards’ Combine Committee produced its ‘alternative plan for socially useful production’. The Combine Committee was the organisation through which shop stewards of different plants of Lucas Aerospace came together to share information and coordinate campaigns for the transformation of production. 

The 1970s was a period when UK-based engineering corporations – Lucas Aerospace, Vickers, British Leyland, Chrysler – were attempting to rationalise their sprawling assets with factory closures and ‘redundancies’. Self-confident shop stewards’ committees, increasingly organised on a company-wide basis and with considerable bargaining power – built up during the post-war boom – refused to accept that they and their members, mainly skilled engineers and creative designers, were ‘redundant’. To resist management plans, they not only took industrial action but also proposed alternatives, insisting that management should consider other ways to deploy their skills for public benefit.

Tony Benn, the Secretary of State for Industry in the 1974 Labour government, asked the Lucas Aerospace shop stewards what they thought about bringing the aerospace industry into public ownership. At first, the members of the Combine Committee were doubtful. The experience of previously nationalised industries, like coal and the railways, made them question whether public ownership would necessarily lead to secure employment. They responded instead by drawing up their own plan – in effect, their autonomous terms on which any form of state intervention in the company should take place.

Their plan was based on ideas put forward by union members across the company’s offices and factories and included around 150 medical, environmental, and transport products that these workers believed they could design and manufacture to save jobs – as alternatives to the military components that were the core business of Lucas Aerospace. The shop stewards intended that these proposals should be included in their collective bargaining with management. They hoped, moreover, that, following their discussions with Tony Benn, the Labour government would support their plan, make state funding for Lucas Aerospace Ltd conditional on negotiations on the plan, and shift contracts for military aerospace to contracts for medical and environmental equipment. The Lucas Aerospace shop stewards were, in the words of Karl Marx, demanding that collective bargaining go beyond ‘exchange-value’ (wages and working conditions) to use-value’ (the purpose and products of their labour).

The management declined to consider the alternative plan in labour negotiations. Lucas Aerospace CEO James Blyth, speaking to MPs who had been impressed by the plan and wanted to know why the company refused to engage with it, was obdurate: ‘We do not need the combine committee to tell us to diversify’, he said. The shop stewards had challenged managerial prerogatives. Plus, Tony Benn, contrary to the procedures of the civil service, had made direct contact with and met engineer and designer trade union representatives, on the frontline of production, rather than go through national trade union officials.

Management eventually succeeded in sacking Mike Cooley and Ernie Scarborough, two of the leading Combine members. The Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson moved Benn from the Department of Industry to become the Secretary of State for Energy, and the government finally sided with Lucas Aerospace management, though the union campaign did win a minor reduction in the number of redundancies.

Although the Combine Committee failed in its main objective, its efforts can be seen now as an early attempt at ‘transition bargaining’ or ‘bargaining for public benefit’. The development of the plan and the failure to be able to bargain over its implementation, contain important lessons for today’s challenge of moving to a low-carbon economy.

The final section of this essay asks how trade unions can turn limited industrial power (but advanced practical know-how) into an effective force for decarbonisation.

b) 2020–2024. Rolls Royce aerospace factories: shop stewards’ campaign to produce mechanisms for wind turbines to be in the company’s diversification plans

The decline in aerospace markets during and after the pandemic coincided with increased public awareness of the immediacy of the threat of climate change, in part stimulated by the strikes led by Greta Thunberg and the movement of school students whose futures are at stake. In this context, shop stewards understood themselves as citizens and parents as well as workers and when redundancies were announced at the Rolls Royce aerospace factories, they contacted the local Green New Deal campaign group associated with the Coventry Trades Council. They were eager to learn from the Lucas alternative plan to resist job losses with proposals for alternative, low-carbon, products.

Their company-wide union coordination was not as strong as the Lucas Aerospace shop stewards’ Combine Committee, but they too were confident in the usefulness of their skills and believed that they could and should shift their work from high-carbon aerospace to low-carbon alternatives. The Rolls Royce shop stewards insisted that ‘there is an alternative’ to redundancies, based on the usefulness of their skills to wider society.

As with Lucas Aerospace, management at Rolls Royce were resistant to what they consider to be their right to decide unilaterally on products and investment and the future of the company. But there is a contrast with the Lucas Aerospace experience: the movement for climate action has reached the point where the management realises that the brand’s reputation will be jeopardised if Rolls Royce is not at least seen to be reducing carbon emissions. This vulnerability has given the shop stewards an additional source of strength: the dependence of corporate profits on the reputation of the company brand. The unions were thus able to win a commitment from management, in a written Memorandum of Agreement, to explore products of benefit to the environment if existing employment opportunities came to an end.

Growing anger, most dramatically among young people at the failure of the elites to take action to reduce carbon emissions has also had an impact on workers’ own awareness of their responsibility to future generations, leading some to question their complicity in high-carbon production.

Regional and national strategies

At the same time, although these trade union-led conversion initiatives were emerging in only a handful of manufacturing workplaces, other trade unionists have been working at a regional and national level to create an industrial and political momentum towards a low-carbon economy. The Climate Commissions of Yorkshire and Humberside and of Scotland are among the most notable examples. These two approaches are being linked through the Trades Union Council (TUC), which has appointed staff across the UK (in Scotland, Wales, Yorkshire and Humberside and the East Midlands) to support workplace collective bargaining to reduce carbon emissions. 

Thus, a growing minority of trade unionists share an intensifying sense of urgency on climate breakdown. There are also similar tendencies, albeit taking different forms, in France, Germany, Italy and several other European countries. For now, management tend to use their prerogative to block such initiatives, but with the pressing reality of climate breakdown interest continues to grow.

The power of shared practical knowledge, the limits of individual examples

Workers’ collective capacity to control and redirect production makes workplace and regional trade union unionism a vital potential ally for the wider movement to reduce carbon emissions. Simultaneously, this is also what makes these trade union initiatives a threat to management. The transformative potential stems from the power of workers’ practical knowledge of production.

This knowledge tends to be tacit, evident in workers’ skills in making things rather than the codified, written, generalising or ‘scientific’ knowledge that is conventionally – at least in principle and aspiration – the basis of public policy. There is a need for trade-union organising to facilitate the sharing of this tacit social knowledge in order to create a comprehensive ‘under view’ of the production process which can then generate bargaining demands that challenge managements’ overview.

The initiatives referred to so far are at the company level, but the necessary systemic transformation of production to overcome the climate crisis is unlikely to come factory by factory or company by company, especially in today’s global market and financialised capitalism. Moreover, in the UK, the climate crisis has converged with a cost-of-living crisis to a point where workplace unions are overwhelmed by struggles to defend their livelihoods. In such conditions of general austerity, management has the upper hand – which is very different from the post-war boom years during which the trade unions developed their strength.

Even so, there are indications that public opinion in support of extraordinary measures to address either the public health or climate crisis has weakened management’s ability to ensure that collective bargaining remains restricted to wages and conditions. Rolls Royce’s unions resisting redundancies were able to make use of the company’s need to appear ‘green’ to gain a commitment at least to explore low-carbon alternatives.

Beyond telling individual stories: the tools to theorise, generalise and plan beyond existing limits

Thinking theoretically about the obstacles faced by innovative trade unionists helps us to break the repeated cycles of failure and to widen the horizons of our vision. One source of trade unionists’ failure to realise the potential of their leverage over production is that they tend to pass responsibility for issues beyond the workplace to electoral politics, to those they consider to be the representatives of organised labour in parliament.

This abrogation is now particularly evident in the environmental crisis. All too often, trade unions, especially in the UK, pass policy resolutions at their conferences on what the national government could do to mitigate the climate crisis. And, at the same time, they limit their own industrial bargaining to the terms and conditions on which their members sell their capacity to work, regardless of the nature or the purpose of the product. 

In order to rethink the relation between workplace trade unionism and economy-wide change (and the potential role of the state in this process) it helps to understand the importance of fossil fuels to the character of capitalist development, especially in the global North. Andreas Malm’s work on the origins of contemporary capitalism is useful here. His study of the Industrial Revolution, Fossil Capital, aims to explain why its entrepreneurial pioneers chose fossil fuel (coal) as the source of the energy to drive production and capital accumulation rather than other sources of energy, most notably water.

Britain’s embrace of coal came relatively late, argues Malm. Water power remained dominant for decades after James Watt’s invention of the steam engine. Fossil capitalism arose from a desire to concentrate industry in cities, thereby avoiding the complex and costly engineering needed to sustain water-powered production in an urban setting. Moreover, the engineering required would have necessitated cooperation and coordination among mill-owners – inimical to most of these early capitalists at a time of intense competition. Coal as a source of energy also allowed for a greater concentration of labour, more easily disciplined, and exploited, before trade unions become established. 

Malm’s detailed historical analysis points to the vested interests which protect the fossil-driven energy of the past two centuries of capitalist development with all its cumulative damage to the planet. Whereas Marx’s Capital analysed the exploitation of workers’ capacity to work (that is, to sell their capacity to labour) that lies at the heart of capitalism’s dynamic of accumulation, Fossil Capital analyses the choice of energy and extractive systems to provide the mechanical energy activated by human labour to produce surplus value. In combination, these relationships of class antagonism and Promethean domination of nature led to the carbon-intensive industrial system – and patterns of consumption and habits of everyday life that have built on it for the last 300 years. 

A halt and, preferably a reversal, of this process requires transformative action by an actor based in production itself, with a vested interest in or commitment to, cutting carbon emissions, and with a practical knowledge of potential technology of alternatives. Corporate owners and controllers of production are unlikely candidates for such a role (though there are important exceptions). For many shareholder driven corporations the long-term shift to low-carbon production is perceived to jeopardise their profitable assets due to the risks of a shift into unknown (to them) markets, for which they lack easy access to the expertise and sources of sufficiently cheap labour. Moreover, they have made it their business to occupy the key decision-making processes in the state, where they exert their considerable power to weaken the impact of any regulation that might erode their ability to accumulate profit.

Another possible agent, and a constant scourge of fossil-fuel corporations, is the strong activist movement with an explicit, angry and determined desire to end the extraction of fossil fuels – whether the Fridays for the Future school-students’ movement or Extinction Rebellion and its offspring influenced by Malm’s work: Just Stop Oil. These movements have sparked citizens’ awareness and concern on the disaster of climate overheating and he urgent the need for collective action.

The problem with this important ‘end fossil fuel’ movement, however, is that it fails to take adequate account of the large numbers of people whose livelihoods depend on their work in these carbon-intensive industries. Without this, the potential base of a citizens’ movement is divided, with significant numbers having a material vested interest n a high-carbon economy.

To develop a widely shared positive vested interest in a low-carbon economy, we need to consider the transformative potential of the main active, creative agent of production: organised labour. This does not rule out the importance of Extinction Rebellion, Just Stop Oil, Fridays for the Future and other ‘end fossil fuel ‘climate movements and initiatives. On the contrary, these movements and the direct action (however controversial) have helped alert the labour movement to the urgency to reduce carbon emissions and, as we saw in the case of Rolls Royce, have ed them to think critically about what they produce and to act on their obligations to future generations.

The transformative potential of currently alienated labour

According to Marx, labour power is ‘the aggregate of those mental and physical capabilities existing in a human being, which they exercise whenever they produce a use value of any description’. He highlighted the fact that under capitalism, workers ‘alienate’ (or sell) their labour power or capacity to work in exchange for a wage or salary. Workers therefore lose control over their labour power. How their capacity for labour is deployed – to what uses and for what purposes – is the prerogative of capital, responding to the pressures of the market and competition with other capitalists. Trade unions have historically won the right to organise over the terms on which workers sell their capacity to work, that is over the exchange value of labour. They rarely challenge capital’s control over a worker’s capacity to work, the use value of what is produced. The question is how can civic economic actors develop the means by which they control and direct the market to meet social needs? 

Beyond exchange value; bargaining over use value

Workers’ initiatives, of the sort with which we began this essay, that aim to convert existing high-carbon production to low-carbon products/ production processes, are challenging this deeply entrenched restriction of trade unionism to bargaining over exchange value. They remain though isolated ‘one-off’ initiatives. Any effective and sustained challenge to commodity production requires such workers’ initiatives to be part of a society-wide alliance able to challenge and replace the market at different levels.

Traditionally the left would have looked to the state to replace the market. And indeed, given the climate crisis, state action will be essential to move society away from fossil fuels. The state though has, as we know been taken over or ‘occupied’ by private capital including fossil capital, especially the oil companies.[1] The strategic problem then becomes how to work both within production (and consumption) the home base for corporations – while also transforming the state so that it breaks from capital and supports organised labour to extend collective bargaining to questions of use value and purpose.

There have been several experiences – albeit local and short-lived – of state institutions led by politicians with a commitment to radical transformation and gaining office in the context of strong and radical social movements. Some of these are international, most notably in cities of Latin America – Porto Alegre in Brazil,[2] led by a radical regional grouping of the Workers’ Party (Partido dos Trabalhadores (PT)), and in Montevideo led by an equally visionary group of activists and intellectuals of the Frente Amplio. We also had an experience in London of which I had direct experience: the four years of the Greater London Council (GLC) 1982-1986 (and its abolition by Margaret Thatcher) at a time when the trade union movement was still confident, and community, feminist, Black and gay liberation movements were hungry for a taste of power, but also resolutely independent.

The story of the GLC illustrates a new vision of the role of the state not as exercising its power of domination in order to centralise power and command but as a resource for organised citizens to realise their power to transform.

Socially useful production versus militarised market production- a municipal political experiment

In the early 1980s, Ken Livingstone’s socialist Greater London Council (GLC), across the River Thames from Margaret Thatcher’s determinedly neoliberal government, pioneered an unusual industrial strategy to address the high levels of unemployment in London. The experiences of the Lucas Aerospace workers were an important influence.

The Labour Party activists and would-be councillors made a commitment to give full support to trade-union alternative plans that shared the objectives of their electoral mandate. The result was the Council’s London Industrial Strategy (LIS), which sought to bring together the local government and workplace trade unionists to guide public investment to maximise public (including planetary) benefit rather than private profit.

The LIS introduction analysed contemporary capitalism as a political economy in which ‘the overriding priority is given to private market production and to the military sector, to increased intensity of work within the factory and the technological replacement of awkward labour’.

‘We can call this militarised market production’, it states.‘It represents the economics of capital.’ It goes on to argue that ‘there is an alternative, which we shall call socially useful production’. This, it continues, ‘takes as its starting point not the priorities of the balance sheet, but the provision of work for all who wish it, in jobs that are geared to meeting social need’. William Morris, it added, ‘referred to it as “useful work” rather than “useless toil”. It represents the economics of labour’.

There are obviously limits to what can be generalised on the basis of one municipal experience, but we can gain some insights into how state institutions could be transformed to actively support the initiatives of labour for the public good. 

The GLC’s achievement was to develop an industrial strategy that sought to nurture the capacity of organised workers, directly and in alliance with community organisations, to transform production more radically than is possible by state intervention alone.

This is not the place for a long digression on the character of the transformative movements at that time. It is enough to say that they were deeply political in the sense of attempting to prefigure radically transformative change, without focusing entirely on the state as its sole or exclusive agent. In this sense they broke from dominant traditions of the left (particularly with strategies that focused almost entirely on the party capturing the state as the agent of change or that delegated agency upwards to the political class).

Creating alternatives in the present to prefigure and prepare for the future

Pre-figurative politics involves the commitment to creating experiences of a new society within, and in conflict with, the shell of the old. Or, to put it another way, it involves organising now to illustrate in practice the values of the society we envision for the future.

The emergence of pre-figurative politics with the social movements of the 1970s, especially the women’s liberation movement was in part a desire to move beyond the instrumental politics of both Leninism and social democracy in which the end – state power through insurrection or elections respectively – justified the means. For feminist activists, the creation of solutions to the day-to-day consequences of their subordination was essential if they were to be active and autonomous.

Setting up community childcare, for example, was very important. Consequently, the early days of the women’s movement saw numerous experiments in community controlled childcare – distinguished from from the state provided and controlled nurseries of World War II. Some of these community initiatives went on to be funded by local councils and became models for public childcare policies, though not without tensions about who was really in control. In this way, a self-conscious pre-figurative culture and social movement can play a part in enriching public policy.

The impact of neoliberalism on a new left politics

Pre-figurative politics also provides a good description of the work of radical trade-union organisations like the Lucas Aerospace shop stewards or, to give another example relatively common at the time, community organisations resisting property developers and developing their own alternative ‘people’s plans’ for their neighbourhoods. These were often supported by the more radical Labour municipalities.

How this emergent politics could have changed the left’s relation to the state was never fully realised. Certainly, it involved a break from both the social democratic and the command-economy models of socialism, but the implicit positive model remained fuzzy, to be developed in practice as much as in theory. 

But political time waits for no one, and time was called by the victory of Thatcher and Reagan and the neoliberal era they inaugurated. The neoliberal offensives of the early 1980s hit the emerging radical left politics hard. Between them, Thatcher, Reagan and an increasingly neoliberal European Economic Community (the precursor of the European Union, EU) destroyed the institutional support for this alternative.

Nevertheless, the glimpses of a radical socialist politics witnessed in the 1970s has remained in the imaginary of a whole generation and shaped movements’ ambiguous ‘in and against’ relationship to electoral politics. The memory has been periodically enlivened by moments of transformative creativity: the transnational, anti-hierarchical networks of the ‘alter-globalisation’ movement; the direct action of the Occupy movement; the anti-racist and pro-LGBT rights movements; and new forms of community organising stretching across these years. These all provide a resource for the kind of movement needed to change the balance of power in the economy and society while building the basis for a different kind of state.

While a shift in the balance of social and economic power is a precondition for transforming the state, a transformation of the political institutions does not automatically follow. On the contrary, these institutions – in our focus those of the UK – often act to protect themselves from the democratic, transformative pressures of movements. In that sense the brief but ultimately thwarted attempt to transform London’s political institutions was an exception; an exception which helps us learn the workings of the rule.

Power as domination and power as transformation

Power as domination – in particular, power through the state – is not necessarily (simply by virtue of being power gained through the state) opposed to power as transformation. It can, for instance, as in the GLC’s popular planning, or Porto Alegre’s participatory budgeting, act as a resource for transformative power: both to support the building of power through enabling it to influence state decision-making and also by providing funds and a platform through which civic or popular organisations can extend and strengthen their autonomous power. This in turn acts as a source of democratic control over the state, notably over the implementation of the manifesto on which the governing party was elected. 

This raises the question of the circumstances that make possible a positive dynamic of combined state and popular power. Without going into details, we can draw two lessons from existing detailed studies or reflections: first, that the formal structures /institutions matter in enabling a direct, transparent, interactive and unmediated relationship between citizens and elected politicians. The significance of this, negatively, will become clear when we scrutinise the inadequate democracy of the British state. 

The second conclusion is that these formal structures are critical but not sufficient to produce a deepening of democracy and a strengthening of popular power. In both London and Porto Alegre, there were independent animating social forces rooted in society and the economy. In London the animating forces were the grassroots labour movements influenced by the uprisings of the late 1960s and 1970s; in Porto Alegre, it was the Workers’ Party (Partido dos Trabalhadores (PT)) which was able to build on the citizens’ movements built to resist the dictatorship.

So how do we apply these experiences to the combined and concerted state–civic action needed to beat the Climate Clock?

1. Obstacles to change: the institutions of the British state

The British state as it stands is not fit for purpose – to urgently reduce the mounting levels of carbon emissions in a democratic and accountable way against the dominant drive of the private market. Nor will it empower the civic and labour initiatives that share the same goal.

Indeed, British state institutions built since the 1660 restoration of the monarchy are designed specifically to protect the ruling order from any threat to their dominion. Any whiff of insubordination, and they are on the case. This was evident in the alarm and effective exile of Tony Benn, the abolition of the GLC, and the concerted opposition to Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour Party and bid to be Prime Minister. Such efforts to marginalise challenging political leaders is made considerably easier by Westminster’s disproportionate ‘First Past the Post‘ electoral system which pushes the electoral process to the centre. 

The Scottish writer Neil Ascherson put it vividly when he said, ‘It is not possible to build democratic socialism by using the institutions of the Ancient British State. I include the present doctrine of (parliamentary) sovereignty, Parliament, the electoral system, the Civil Service, the whole gaudy heritage. It is not possible in the way that it is not possible to induce a vulture to give milk’. 

Ascherson’s explanation for the fundamentally barren possibilities of change through the British state is highly pertinent: ‘The United Kingdom is still essentially a monarchical structure. Not in terms of direct royal intervention, but as a polity in which power flows from the top down. The idiotic doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty – the late 17th-century transfer of absolutism from kings endowed with divine right to an elected assembly – excludes any firmly entrenched distribution of rights. Popular sovereignty in Britain is a metaphor, not an institution’.

In other words, the key feature of Britain’s state, monarchy, union and all, is that power is exercised from the top down. The people are ruled. They have a vote for their rulers but as subjects rather than citizens. Their rights are limited, especially their right to government information and to call their executive to account. They vote for representatives who swear allegiance not to the people or to the constitution but to the monarch, who is represented in parliament by the Prime Minister. ‘His Majesty’s Government’ is a ritualistic title but it contains a truth – that the executive is not actually accountable to citizens. 

And this has significance for the citizens’ possibility of extending their control over the executive when the need arises, as it does in the case of action to slow down global heating. If the principle of accountability to citizens with rights independent of the current executive is not in the legal/constitutional basis of the state, there is no basis on which to expand those rights or ensure that they are implemented. 

The contrast the GLC: An oath to the crown versus a duty to the voters

The contrast with the GLC is striking: although historically it tended to imitate Westminster GLC councillors in reality had a ‘fiduciary duty’ (a legal obligation) to London’s ratepayers rather than an allegiance to the crown. Admittedly the relationship of accountability was framed in financial terms, but even so such an accountability laid the basis for policies that strengthened voters’ power – in other words, helped to build power from below. Moreover the Labour Party manifesto had made a strong and explicit commitment to the principle of popular participation as the basis of its intended way of running the GLC. This commitment defined the councillors’ fiduciary duty and strengthened their direct and transparent relationship with the voters, enabling workers to exert pressure and even power over the implementation of the manifesto.

Ultimately, however, the centralised executive power of Prime Minister Thatcher to abolish the GLC, the government of the capital no less, was a sharp reminder that any democracy in local government was dependent on the political whim of Her Majesty’s Prime Minister. In a sense, local government in Britain, lacking any entrenched power, has little more status than the provincial arm of central government, on the imperial model.

2. Possibilities for change: The transformative potential of social and labour movements – a legacy of 1968 

An important feature of the 1982–1986 GLC is that the cultural and political hopes and temperament of a significant political proportion of both its political leadership and the leadership of the social and trade-union organisations with which they worked, were also shaped by the 1968 rebellions and the emancipatory movements of the 1970s – feminism, gay and lesbian liberation, Black power, community movements for popular control, shop floor militancy and so on.

Why should these movements of rebellion matter for the struggles of the twenty-first century?

The late Tom Nairn, like Neal Ascherson, a powerful critic of the British state, ‘the whole gaudy heritage’, provides a clue in the book he co-wrote inspired by the ‘événements’ of Paris in May ’68: The Beginning of the End: ‘A humanity which has re-discovered its true height and image without being driven to this discovery by physical need … will never crouch again beneath any fossilised tyranny in the name of order’.

Throughout the 1970s, different parts of humanity strove to reach their true height and image, rising against a variety of forms of subordination and tyranny. Nairn identified with the democratic nationalists of Scotland claiming their right to self-determination against the monarchical Union of the British state. The rise of the women’s liberation movement represented half of humanity striving to reach its true height and image and emphasised, in theory and practice, the importance of self-transformation and of the collective strength to sustain it. To rise from an institutionalised crouch involves a shared collective awareness of possibilities beyond that social subordination and simultaneously an individual aspiration to realise these possibilities and rise to one’s full height.

Self-transformation, direct action and the movement for action on climate change

Self-transformation in the process of a collective struggle also requires a way of organising which realises the capacity and agency of each. This principle has been fundamental to the the movements for action on climate change, such as the direct actions of the Camp for Climate Action against the expansion of Heathrow Airport, Drax B power station and other high-carbon emitters.

Similarly, a small minority of trade unionists have long campaigned for policies to move the economy away from fossil fuels. They came together in 2001 in response to President George W. Bush’s rejection of the Kyoto Protocol to form the Campaign for a Million Climate Jobs. The movement soon became appropriately international and also engaged in direct action closer to home – for example, campaigning against the closure of the Vestas Wind Turbine plant on the Isle of Wight and support for the Vesta workers’ occupation of the factory. This campaign helped to overcome polarisation between the climate and the labour movement by stressing the numbers of public-sector jobs that could be created in providing renewable energy, increasing energy efficiency by insulating homes and public buildings, and hugely expanding public transport. It is an important factor in the growing willingness among trade unions to take action to shift towards low-carbon production in their own workplaces.

The rapid spread of the school student strikes of Fridays for the Future indicate that the spirit of 1968 as a striving for full self-realisation and the end of deference (as identified by Nairn) is still a social force. There is an added urgency though: the need for planetary survival does now play a part, but is given extra force by the angry demand of a new generation for the right to such self-realisation, against a complacent and incompetent elite for which they have nothing but contempt.

Moreover, this challenge to the exiting order takes place at a time when the legitimacy of the ruling order is crumbling from all sides, especially in the UK where neither of the two main parties – neither the Conservatives in government, nor Labour in opposition – enjoy the trust, let alone support, of the public. The powerful impact of a recent TV documentary, ‘Alan Bates versus the Post Office’, an IT scandal and establishment cover-up that saw sub-postmasters wrongfully charged and even jailed and the impressive resistance of the 500 or so sub-postmasters and mistresses that it featured, is a strong illustration of how the reserves of deference on which the legitimacy of Westminster and Whitehall depended, have run dry.

Movements, however, also need material resources – they can’t survive on self-confidence, creativity and solidarity alone. The movements of the 1970s, despite their spirit of autonomy and self-reliance, often depended on public resources, such as the voluntary labour of supportive academics and the activists and artists who lived on public benefits. Some even directly received public funding. Despite this paucity of traditional sources of material support there has not been an end of actions – on the streets and in the workplaces – for lower carbon emissions. The urgency of the issue has produced dynamics of openness to alliances that break down traditional boundaries and a growing willingness to improvise to pre-figure elements of a low-carbon economy in daily life with local insulation, renewable energy projects, alternatives to agroindustry and so on. Groups are also adept at finding material support from what’s left of the public sector – universities, local government, local ‘anchor institutions’ such as colleges, hospitals, police and schools – to use, for example, their procurement powers to support local co-operatives, social and environmental enterprises.

The important point is that there is a movement that has the potential to transition to a low-carbon economy with the strength to sustain itself and achieve partial victories independently of a supportive state. This movement could also prepare the way, shifting the balance of power, to make such a supportive state possible. In the absence of any immediate hopes of a political breakthrough, the movement will need to find political allies wherever possible – sometimes local councils, sometimes a rare Labour MP who champions their cause; sometimes support from other political parties – the Greens, SNP and Plaid Cymru. 

Like the Airbus workers who took the initiative to convert aeroplane parts to ventilator parts, these alliances are organised independently of any political party but can take effective political action when the need and opportunity arises. Moreover, the transformative power that they build in the economy and in society can help shift the balance of power to challenge the corporate capture of the state that has so far blocked any radical political leader from gaining and holding on to government office. Such a vision implies a long-term strategy, but one which potentially wins changes on the way. An extension of collective bargaining over the purpose of production along with actual working micro-examples of low-carbon production are essential to saving the planet at a time when political elites continue as if the Climate Clock no longer ticks.

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are not the official position of the IWW (or even the IWW’s EUC) and do not necessarily represent the views of anyone but the author.

Tags: green syndicalismLucas Planclimate changeUnited Kingdom (UK)ecological movements and organizationsmovements, unions, and organizationsstrategy and tacticsExtinction Rebellion (XR)Fridays for the FutureAndreas Malmanti-capitalismdirect actionKarl MarxMarxismecosocialismfossil fuel capitalismShop Stewards Combine CommitteeCOVID-19neoliberalism

Press Release by the Indonesian Peasants’ Union (Serikat Petani Indonesia – SPI)

The government has once again announced rice imports with a quota of 3 million tons throughout 2024. Some of the imported rice, or about 2 million tons, is targeted to arrive in January-March 2024. The government, through the Coordinating Ministry for Economic Affairs, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Trade, the National Food Agency, and Perum Bulog1, claims that rice imports are being carried out in this political year to meet the Government Rice Reserve (CBP) and Social Assistance needs. However, March, April, May, and June 2024 are the peak harvest seasons for rice farmers.

The SPI assesses that Indonesia is in a dire situation as it becomes increasingly dependent on food imports. Especially for rice, the import of 3.3 million tons in 2023 was the largest rice import by the government in the last 25 years. Furthermore, the Central Statistics Agency (BPS) stated that rice imports in 2023 increased by 613.61% compared to 2022. This is not to mention the rice imports throughout 2024.

The government’s decision to import rice in 2024 is truly puzzling.

The government argues that the situation is abnormal due to the El Nino phenomenon. This argument continues to be echoed by the government, although climate data for 2024 indicates a return to normal conditions. The government’s claim that rice production has decreased is unfounded and cannot be used as justification for imports.

Similarly, the provision of rice for social assistance will continue until June 2024. Because even though imports have been carried out as in the past two years, consumer rice prices remain high, even exceeding the Highest Retail Price (HET) set by the government. In April 2023, SPI proposed that the improvement of the Harvested Grain and Rice Purchasing Price (HPP) must approach market prices. However, the National Food Agency only increased the HPP of Harvested Grain (GKP) at the farmer level by Rp. 800, from Rp. 4,200 per kg to Rp. 5,000 per kg.

This insignificant increase practically makes Perum Bulog unable to meet the CBP target. Farmers also prefer to sell paddy to parties other than Perum Bulog at fair prices to cover their increasing production costs. As a result, consumers are forced to buy rice above the HET. Perum Bulog’s inability to fulfill the CBP indicates a recurring problem every year. Perum Bulog’s rice stocks are limited because it cannot absorb farmers’ paddy and rice. As a result, rice prices cannot be controlled through market operations.

In fact, a massive influx of food imports in Indonesia has been occurring since 1998.

The signing of a Letter of Intent with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) encouraged Indonesia to open its food market to foreign imports, including rice, wheat flour, sugar, garlic, beef, and other food crops. Most recently, the false solution of food imports is reinforced by the enactment of the Omnibus Law Law No. 6 of 2023 concerning Job Creation. The Job Creation Law nullifies various laws that previously favored farmers. If the trend of food imports continues, it will further bankrupt farmers in Indonesia.

Since the rice imports began to flow late 2023, the price of paddy at the farmer level has started to decline from a range of Rp. 7,000-8,600 per kg to around Rp. 6,000 per kg in early January 2024. Such conditions indicate that the perspective of food security used by the Indonesian government actually increases dependence on imports even more. Not to mention Indonesia being the world’s largest wheat importer. The impact of expensive rice prices leads lower-middle-class people to buy cheaper food alternatives such as instant noodles. Meanwhile, the upper class consumes bread. Both of these foods are made from wheat. This is very dangerous because the decrease in rice consumption actually increases the demand for wheat.

In this regard, SPI believe that the solution to the food problem lies in Food Sovereignty, one of its principles being the fulfillment of rights, whether it be the right to land, seeds, water, or other production factors.

Meanwhile, in terms of food security, we question the decision to promote imports. This makes a country that can produce food unable to produce food independently, only considering economic aspects.
Based on this, SPI calls for the following attitudes and demands:

• Reject Rice Imports Rice imports will affect the price of paddy and rice at the farmer level as they enter the peak harvest season in the first semester of 2024. The government must also repeal the Job Creation Law and reinstate articles that favor farmers such as the Food Law; Farmer Protection and Empowerment Law; Sustainable Agricultural Land Protection Law.
• Government Rice Reserves (CBP) Must Come from Farmers The CBP target can be achieved if the HPP is at a reasonable level. This will attract farmers to sell to the Government/Perum Bulog rather than to other parties (private or middlemen).
• Increase the Purchase Price (HPP) of Paddy and Farmers’ Rice The National Food Agency must update the HPP of paddy and farmers’ rice to a fair price.
• Revision of the Minister of Agriculture Regulation No. 67 of 2016 on Farmer Institutional Development The Ministry of Agriculture does not comply with Constitutional Court Decision No. 87/PUU-XI/2013 which facilitates farmer institutions formed by farmers.
• Agrarian Reform for New Rice Fields Land for farmers, not corporations. Food farmers must be supported by the government through Agrarian Reform and new paddy field printing programs.
• Subsidies for Farmers, Rice Production Restructuring, and Distribution Giving subsidies to farmers should not only be in the form of fertilizer subsidies but also in direct subsidies. Because farmer organizations must be involved in every policy decision. This is because the government often ignores the aspirations of farmers and farmer organizations, resulting in policies that are not favorable to farmers, such as the decision to import rice.

This article is a translation of the original version that appeared on the SPI website in January 2024.

The post Rice imports lead farmers to bankruptcy, endangers food sovereignty: Serikat Petani Indonesia appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

On February 7, originally intended to mark the inauguration of the first democratically elected Haitian leader since the assassination of Jovenel Moïse in July 2021, is marred by the absence of elections and the breach of the agreement signed in December 2022 between Prime Minister Ariel Henry and the opposition. This breach has triggered protests throughout the country. Concurrently, the violence of criminal gangs prevails in Port-au-Prince and several cities nationwide.

Haiti, February 6, 2024 | The “4 Je Kontre” platform, comprising the National Peasant Movement of the Papaye Congress (MPNKP), Tet Kole Ti Peyizan Ayisyen (TK), the Peasant Movement of Papaye (MPP), and the Regional Coordination of Southeast Organizations (KROS), takes this opportunity to commend the resilience and determination of the Haitian people against the authoritarian PHTK regime. This regime is led by de facto Prime Minister Ariel Henry, other unscrupulous government members, and their national and international allies. A comprehensive analysis of Haiti’s dire situation reveals that criminal acts by armed gangs and unscrupulous criminals persist, hindering nationwide mobilization against the regime. Increased insecurity has been documented in areas where the population is subjected to kidnappings, massacres, property fires, and the rape of women and girls, among other atrocities.

The population is grappling with an economically challenging period, marked by a soaring cost of living. Essential goods continue to escalate in price, while Ariel Henry’s de facto government allocates significant funds to finance gangs and mercenaries within the National Police to maintain its grip on power. The international community, represented by BINUH, the Core Group, and the United Nations, persists in supporting the de facto government, adopting delaying tactics to keep Ariel in power, despite widespread public discontent and dissatisfaction with political institutions. Ariel and his cohorts have declared their intention to relinquish power after holding elections, despite various sectors of national life proposing a Haitian solution to the crisis in Haiti. Unfortunately, no progress has been made as Ariel Henry obstructs all initiatives aiming to displace his government.

For over two years, Ariel Henry has advocated for elections under the premise that PHTK could renew itself, detrimentally affecting the population through increased taxes, rising fuel prices, and the diversion of public funds to ineffective social aid programs. We emphatically declare that this situation is untenable, and we must vehemently strive to overturn the system and all supporting forces at the expense of the people.

In this context, all member organizations of “4 Je Kontre” endorse the Montana proposal, advocating for a complete break and the establishment of a dual-headed transitional government, projected to last between 18 and 24 months. This government aims to pave the way by establishing an impartial electoral council, free from U.S. influence and any international communit interference. Additionally, the transitional government will endeavor to ensure security across the national territory, enabling free movement for the population.

“4 Je Kontre” will steadfastly continue to support all positive actions and demands from other progressive sectors aimed at toppling the de facto government and its allies.

LONG LIVE SOVEREIGN HAITI!
LONG LIVE THE PEOPLE’S STRUGGLE FOR A HAITIAN SOLUTION FOR HAITI!
LONG LIVE SOLIDARITY AMONG ALL PROGRESSIVE ORGANIZATIONS FIGHTING FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE!

This press release has been prepared by the member organizations of La Via Campesina in Haiti, including Mouvman Peyizan Nasyonal Kongre Papay (MPNKP), Mouvman Peyizan Papay (MPP), and Tet Kole Ti Peyizan Ayisyen (TK), in collaboration with the Regional Coordination of Southeast Organizations (KROS). These organizations collectively form the platform “4 Je Kontre” in Haiti.

The post Haiti: Call for Resistance and Solidarity with the Haitian People for a Transitional Government appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

The Colombian government announced in December the creation of a new agrarian judiciary to resolve land conflicts in rural areas of the country, often between peasant farmers and large companies.

The first five agrarian courts will open in May in the cities of Cartagena, Quibdó, Popayán, Pasto and Tunja, with 65 more to come. Peasant farmers, or campesinos, have long struggled for recognition by the state, and advocates have praised the new development as a victory years in the making.

However, some have expressed concerns over its implementation and say the courts must ensure access to justice no matter how unequal the social, economic or cultural differences are between the parties. Colombian President Gustavo Petro’s recent announcement of a new court system to resolve land ownership conflicts in rural areas of the country has drawn a mixed response from advocates of campesino rights, some of whom have hailed it as a “great advance,” while others have questioned whether it will really work.

The Dec. 29 announcement calls for five new courts to be opened in the cities of Cartagena, Quibdó, Popayán, Pasto and Tunja by May 2, with another 65 courts to follow, according to Aurelio Enrique Rodríguez, president of the Superior Council of the Judiciary. The courts will oversee agrarian issues, which currently fall under Colombia’s civil court system — a system critics say lacks specialized judges to clear the backlog of tens of thousands of pending cases.

“We see it as a great advance that this agrarian jurisdiction has been recognized,” said Nury Martínez, president of the National Agricultural Trade Union Federation in Colombia (FENSUAGRO) and member of La Vía Campesina, an international movement that advocates for the rights of peasant farmers. “But when the courts begin to see its first cases, the appointed judges must have a lot of knowledge of agrarian law and must recognize the peasantry.”

Martínez said she’s worried that campesino communities won’t be included in decisions regarding the implementation of this new agrarian court system, given the long history of peasant rights being ignored in Colombia’s political and legal spaces. She pointed to the 1991 Constitution as an example: Although it ushered in progress for Colombia’s Indigenous and Black communities, it failed to offer the same rights and representation to campesinos.

It wasn’t until June 13 of last year that Colombia’s Congress approved an amendment to the Constitution that sought to correct this “historical exclusion” by recognizing peasant rights and granting them special constitutional protection.

“You can’t imagine the number of discussions we had with people from different institutions, agencies or territorial offices who have told us we cannot participate because we have to have a prior understanding of legal knowledge,” Martínez said. “They did not want to accept our knowledge.”

In a statement, Jhenifer Mojica, the minister of agriculture and rural development, said, “Our agricultural commitment is to respond to the urgency of solving the land problem in order to provide food security for our country, achieve peace and advance in the sustainability and environmental responsibility of the production of agriculture.”

The struggle for peace and reform

The proposal to create an agrarian judiciary stems from 2016, with the signing of a peace agreement between the government and the FARC rebel group. But it wasn’t until June 2023 that the agrarian judiciary was finally approved by Congress. “Within the framework of the agrarian jurisdiction that is created, the Government will ensure the existence of an agile and expeditious resource for the protection of property rights,” the final text of the agreement says.

Armed conflict and violence have been associated with land dispossession in Colombia for more than six decades, greatly affecting rural populations. According to the Geneva-based Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, the country has one of the highest internal displacement levels in the world, with 4.8 million people displaced because of armed conflict and violence as of the end of 2022. That figure was an improvement from 5.2 million in 2021.

The long-running civil war between the government and FARC guerrillas saw many peasant communities expelled from or forced to abandon their lands, a large portion of which later fell into the hands of large companies. In 2017, U.K. development charity Oxfam reported that 80% of Colombia’s land was held by 1% of large farm holdings. Yet campesino communities, working with much less land, still produce more than 80% of the country’s food.

According to data from the National Land Agency (ANT), Colombia has a backlog of more than 37,000 agrarian processes that are yet to be addressed. Almost all of these, 95%, are awaiting clarification of ownership. Other cases involve irregular occupation of state-owned land (862), forfeiture of ownership over properties that “do not fulfill the social function of the land” or are pending demarcation (418).

Another effort by President Petro to resolve the unequal land divide is a promise to redistribute more than 3 million hectares (7.4 million acres) of land — an area larger than the country of El Salvador — to landless campesinos and Indigenous peoples who had been displaced by armed conflict and violence across the country. And in December, he signed peace accords with five of the largest armed groups in the country, promising to end the war on drugs that has fueled widespread violence and environmental destruction for more than 50 years.

Alejandro Reyes Posada, a lawyer and sociologist at Pontifical Javeriana University in Bogotá, told Mongabay that land conflicts in Colombia have always been dealt with using civil law — a common legal system that he says doesn’t consider agrarian law and “does not have judges specialized in its application.”

Mónica Parada, a researcher at the land research network Observatorio de Tierras, told Mongabay the new agrarian courts need to have judges and magistrates specialized in the social and economic dynamics of agrarian relations. She emphasized the importance of taking into account the specific situation and needs of those who live in rural areas, ensuring they can access justice no matter their financial situation or if there’s unequal social, economic or cultural differences between the parties. Ultimately, she said, it must guarantee that campesinos feel confident they can go to court against a much larger or more powerful contender for the land, often large farm holders.

“Agrarian justice recognizes this imbalance and guarantees that the weakest party in the relationship can access justice under conditions of material equality,” Parada said.

The new judiciary is one of the many tools that can be used to resolve agrarian conflicts, she said, adding that this and other tools need to be strong, with their own resources and presence where they’re most needed.

“This will make it possible to transform the relationship that citizens have with the administration of justice,” Parada told Mongabay. “[It will] increase their confidence in the institutions and discourage other mechanisms that, instead of reducing, fuel agrarian conflicts.”

This article by Aimee Gabay, forMongabay, has been republished verbatim, with permission. Cover Image: Fensuagro/La Via Campesina

The post Colombia: New agrarian courts raise hopes for end to land conflicts appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

Peasant organizations demand that free trade agreements that have been opening the doors to unfair competition for years be halted, which materialize in their current problems.

Tractors continue to block the roads, new mobilizations are announced, and the problems that the agricultural sector has put on the table are beginning to dominate the center of political debate and media attention. Among the demands of one side and the other, and among those that the far right wants to co-opt and exploit for its own benefit, there is one that is a well-known issue among many activists and social organizations that did not necessarily have to be part of the agricultural sector: free trade treaties.

As one of their main demands, the three farmers’ associations – Asociación Agraria de Jóvenes Agricultores (ASAJA), Coordinadora de Organizaciones de Agricultores y Ganaderos (COAG) and the Unión de Pequeños Agricultores y Ganaderos (UPA) – have demanded that negotiations for one of the major agreements on the table, the Mercosur agreement with the European Union, be completely halted. This agreement would eliminate barriers and further open trade with Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay. They also demand the “non-ratification of the agreement with New Zealand,” which is pending its final ratification by the Parliament of New Zealand and, according to COAG, “opens the door to the importation of meat and milk from the other side of the planet.” Additionally, they also demand that “negotiations with Chile, Kenya, Mexico, India, and Australia” be halted, all of which have been signed by the EU in recent years.

These proclamations are not new, even if it’s when farmers have paralyzed the roads that they have jumped into public debate. Social movements and campaigns against free trade agreements have been warning for years that these trade agreements would have devastating consequences for agriculture, livestock, economies based on these sectors, the planet, and our own bodies. The campaign against the free trade agreement(FTA) between the European Union (EU) and the United States, known as the TTIP, was the focal point of hundreds of social movements, farmers, ranchers, and environmental and human rights defenders across Europe. That FTA was frozen after Trump’s victory, but others like the agreement with Canada, the CETA, and those signed in the following years are now being demanded by farmers’ organizations to be halted and renegotiated. From those free trade agreements, these protests.

The World Trade Organization at the root of it all

To find the roots of the problems that are now flourishing in the form of discontent in the countryside, one needs to point to the beginning of the establishment of international trade rules in this latest era of globalization.

Andoni García, a member of the executive committee of COAG and the coordinating committee of Via Campesina Europe, points to the beginning in the 1992 CAP, “which adapted to the negotiations of the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT),” which later evolved into the World Trade Organization (WTO).

“That’s where the influence of globalization and the WTO on European agricultural policy begins.” From there, García explains, tariffs began to be reduced or eliminated, as well as tools that protected farmers such as indicative prices for production. “It was decided that regulations had to be eliminated to facilitate international trade, as well as direct aid.”

In Via Campesina, they are clear about it and express it in one of their statements: “The WTO has become a space where the Rule of Might prevails, with a few developed countries determining the course of world trade.” But “when that WTO derails and does not progress – García says – is when these types of bilateral free trade agreements begin to be promoted,” where the EU has played a fundamental role.

Not playing by the same rules

The primary opposition to these types of treaties has always centered on the regulatory differences between the two sides of the agreement. The EU has developed much more advanced legislation and controls than countries in the global south or countries with much more liberal regulatory perspectives such as the United States or Canada. The simple explanation could be summarized as most of these FTAs attempting to align regulations in a negotiation that almost always ends up being downward, euphemistically termed “regulatory cooperation.”

“The FTAs have gone far beyond tariff issues; they have addressed regulatory matters,” explains Lucía Bárcena, from the Transnational Institute and a participant in the campaign against free trade agreements. “The standards and controls that exist in Europe for certain agricultural products are obstacles, and this is where this regulatory cooperation comes in, seeking to eliminate them,” she adds. According to the researcher, these regulatory reductions have led to a liberalization where products that were previously not allowed or subject to much stricter control and quality processes are now reaching our supermarkets and plates.

Regarding controls or the absence thereof, “it goes much further,” says the COAG representative. “In free trade agreements and those of the WTO, the receiving country, in this case, the EU, is obliged to accept as valid the controls carried out in the countries of origin of those products and the certifications issued by companies, with more or fewer public controls.”

As if that were not enough, they also prohibit public administrations from conducting systematic checks at borders. In other words, as recipients, they have to rely on certifications from private companies in other countries, and furthermore, “the rules governing this international trade are not the same as those we have to comply with within the EU,” laments García.

Another major difference in controls, and therefore the costs and time incurred by farmers on both sides of one of these agreements, could be the damage control system. “Europe relies on the guarantee system, meaning you have to prove that you comply with phytosanitary rules and conduct checks throughout the product chain,” says Javier Guzmán, director of the organization Food Justice, which has been pointing out the problems that these FTAs would cause for years, and now they explode in the form of protests and serious difficulties for the agricultural sector.

In contrast, in the United States and other countries, it’s a risk-based system: “I bring it, and if something happens, then I stop it. Furthermore, the state receiving the product must prove that the incident occurred due to the product,” he explains. He provides one of the most notable examples from the battle against the TTIP: chlorinated chicken. “In Europe, chicken production requires checks throughout the chain, it’s quite rigorous, but in the United States, there are no checks during the process; when it reaches the end of the chain, it’s washed with chlorine to clean bacteria, and that’s when the only check is made. When you sign a free trade agreement with a country that does that, you’re accepting that chlorinated chicken reaches your plate.”

If the same rules do not exist, “then unfair competition occurs,” says Montse Cortiñas, deputy general secretary of UPA. They are aware that in terms of labor differences such as wages, they cannot demand much, but they do question “if the CAP policy is very focused on environmental care, as European society demands of us, at least products that are not permitted in Europe should not be used, and those countries should be required to care for the planet as much as we are.” Although she says there are hundreds of examples, she explains one very visual and straightforward: “There are products that are causing deforestation in the Amazon to produce them, and they are being exported to Europe, when here we are required to care for the environment, which is an incredibly cynical exercise.”

(This is an excerpt translated from a feature that appeared on the Spanish portal EL Salto written by Yago Álvarez Barba. The title has been edited for clarity. To read the full article in Spanish click here. ). Cover Image and Title: La Via Campesina

The post Treaties and Tractors: The protests in Europe against free trade agreements, WTO at the root of it all appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

By Steve Ongerth - From the book, Redwood Uprising: Book 1

Download a free PDF version of this chapter.

Now back in Sacramento town sits the Board of Forestry,
And they log their land, they work their ranches, and they teach in the universities,
And the nine who sit in judgment as they massacre the trees,
Are Russ and Rose, Small, Berridge and Barnes, Atkinson, Shannon, Walt and Yee…

—lyrics excerpted from the Board of Forestry Song, by Darryl Cherney, 1989 [1]

Now they have those public hearings where they ask our point of view,
Like what do ya think of this here thing on page 4,002,
And they're so easy to get to if you just know how to drive,
And you don't work and you've got no kids and your rich uncle just died…

—lyrics excerpted from the Ballad of BLM, by Darryl Cherney, 1986 [2]

As the “Timber Wars” heated up, it was not uncommon to see counterdemonstrators at Earth First! protests bearing signs which read, “Earth First! is the problem, not the solution.” At these same events counterdemonstrators were quick to bandy about several Corporate Timber talking points. Four widely held notions were parroted in particular: First, corporations were “good neighbors” that supported ecology and contributed to the community. Second, they asserted that harvesting old growth forest stands was beneficial to the environment because removing the older trees allowed quicker growing (not to mention, managed) younger trees to flourish thus removing more CO­­2­ from the atmosphere. Third, they claimed that California had the most stringent forestry laws in existence, namely the Z’berg-Nejedly Forest Practices Act and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and these were already restrictive enough to make logging almost unprofitable. Lastly, government agencies had been hijacked by radical environmentalists, and for this reason the proposed listing of the spotted owl as threatened was merely an attempt to appease an out of control, overly vocal but tiny minority. However, in February and March of 1990, a series of unrelated events debunked all four such claims thoroughly.

Corporate Timber itself, claimed that it was “a good neighbor”, but in fact, they actually acted as though the counties and communities in which they operated owed them something for all of the profits they made at the expense of the workers, environment, and residents. For example, both G-P and L-P opposed new assessments on log trucks hauling logs over county roads in the winter. Mendocino County had spent a million dollars in road maintenance costs for 1989 as a direct result of the timber industry’s hauling in the rainy season. The company reaped the profits, but made the people pay for the effects. [3] As a result the Sherwood Forest Protection Association (SherPA), based near Willits, battled L-P legally in order to force the corporation to pay its fair share. Corporations like L-P were always quick to invoke the money they donated charitably, but Walter Smith pointed out the emptiness of such philanthropy stating:

“L-P donates to the community. Every high school play and practically every social event in Willits has been donated to by (various Gyppos) and L-P. They’re doing those kinds of things, but, on the other hand, the destruction that’s taking place in the woods and the detrimental effect it’s having on our communities is a hell of a lot more than the few pennies they’re putting in on the other end.” 11.0pt; [4]

It was for reasons such as these that residents of timber dependent communities, who had hitherto been cowed into silence, were now speaking out, and not just about clearcutting or road issues. Louisiana-Pacific and Simpson posed substantial health risks due to chloroform emissions at L-P’s Samoa (in Humboldt County) and Antioch (in Contra Costa County) pulp mills and Simpson’s nearby Fairhaven mill. Both had been named among the 500 worst polluters in the United States in August 1989 by the National Wildlife Federation. Simpson’s Pulp Mill ranked at number 208 while L-P’s Samoa facility was ranked 261. Of the 3,100 counties in the nation, Humboldt County ranked 77th worst. [5] The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), especially under the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations had been particularly friendly to capitalist industrial interests, but they were forced, by public pressure, to admit that chloroform emissions posed a significant carcinogenic risk. The EPA had recently calculated that as many as 10 percent of all residents of Eureka would develop cancer from Simpson’s emissions alone. Although the EPA had awarded both companies special permits which allowed them to greatly circumvent normal emissions standards, neither company had even complied with these conditions since 1987. [6]

Due to the recent revelations about L-P’s polluting of the Russian River in Sonoma County, the lack of oversight in Humboldt County was now too big to ignore. [7] The discharged waste water drained directly to the nearby Pacific Ocean and altered the water’s color and temperature interfering with the amount of light vital to photosynthetic activity in violation of California’s Ocean Plan and threatening the lives of shellfish and other marine fauna, as well as the fishermen dependent upon them for their livelihoods. The Surfrider foundation pointed out that the discharged effluent reeked of kerosene, burned skin and eyes, and caused nausea which persisted for days. On January 28, 1988, the Regional Water Quality Control Board had issued a cease and desist order against both L-P and Simpson, but this had been ignored. Additionally, both mills produced dioxin byproducts in the course of their refining activity which posed additional cancer risks. [8]

Workers in these plants were even beginning to add their voice to the chorus of opposition. To speak against these mills had hitherto been to risk one’s job, one’s business, or one’s reputation, and to live in fear or risk the wrath of the mill owners and their constant influence pedaling backed by threats of capital flight. [9] For example, Dave Chism, a hog tender for the Simpson Pulp mill, who had worked at the company for nine years and served as the elected vice president of the Associa­tion of Western Pulp & Paper Workers (AWPPW) Local #67, which represented the 200 or so employees in the Simpson facility, had not originally been a dissident, but had become enlightened after the evidence proved too great to ignore. At an Earth First! rally, he would openly declare:

“If you look down here at this operation (L-P), see how after it breaks up you get that haze? We’ve had a real ongoing battle with particulate problems because it’s an old boiler with an electrostatic precipitator. The particles in the flue gas pass through the precipitator and they’re supposedly taken out of the gas stream, but since ours is so old and since we fire our furnace so hard, we have a lot of problems meeting particulate levels. They ran a source test in April (1989) and the legal allowable limit for particulate per ton of pulp was four pounds; we were found putting out 14.3 pounds. Actually, that’s why I started getting involved, because I’m a pulp worker and that first meeting I went to was a real eye opener. I was on the company side, if anything, until I started listening to some of the arguments that were presented by the environmentalists, started reading some of the documentation. I went, ‘My God, they do have a valid bitch.’ I mean, our company didn’t tell us how much particulate we were putting out. So that’s when I started to try and help them a little bit.” [10]

For his outspokenness, David Chism was red-baited by officials at Simpson. As he described it several years later:

“I can tell you from my own experience, I’ve been called a ‘communist’ by representatives of Simpson Timber Company. They used to routinely refer to the Arcata Plaza as the Red Square and we all had a good chuckle over that one. I was actually involved in an FBI investigation of Simpson Paper Company when they sewered—did some illegal dumping—at the mill when they were closing it, and the FBI agent told me, ‘Look, do you ever plan to work in the timber industry again?’, and I said, ‘no,’ and he said, ‘well, that’s good, because you can pretty much forget it.’ And that came from the FBI—and I don’t really put much stock in what they have to say, but I took that point seriously.” [11]

It was no coincidence that the AWPPW’s increasingly nasty labor dispute with Simpson made the workers more receptive to overtures from the likes of environmental activists, even Earth First!, as workers felt as though the company was abusing them as much as they were the local community. [12] Two workers had been permanently disabled and eight others injured by a pulp mill tank that collapsed due to willful negligence by the company in December of 1988. [13] OSHA had fined the company $666,000, but Simpson was appealing the decision, much like G-P was doing in the case of its Fort Bragg facility. [14] The workers had also been working without a contract since June of 1989. [15] At one point they went so far as to picket plant manager Aaron Gettelman’s house in Arcata. [16] The company responded by denouncing this as “terrorist activities which drew an angry rebuke from AWPPW Local 67 shop steward Robert Sylvester who declared, on behalf of the membership:

“We in the AWPPW are making an honest and good faith attempt to convey to management our concerns about problems in this mill. Management appears to be unwilling to consider our concerns…It has proven very difficult to deal in good faith with our management team, as they refuse to deal with us in any but an adversarial manner.

“The charge of terrorist activities in this mill is not only uncalled for, it is also unfair to a conscientious and dedicated workforce which has labored for years to make this plant an integral and profitable part of the corporation.

“Labor-management relations in this plant are at an all-time low…Threats, intimidation, punitive actions, and concessionary bargaining are not the way to obtain cooperation.” [17]

Both L-P and Simpson planned expansion on their pulp operations as well as new facilities for producing carbon and charcoal. Both companies applied for emissions waivers, which angered the community. Louisiana Pacific’s waver was granted, though it was done largely on a legal technicality, wherein the company cited past practice, essentially wherein the very responsible agencies had declined to enforce emissions and effluent standards that L-P was again asking to violate. [18] The City Council of Arcata, at least, was incensed and declared that L-P’s waiver was illegal, and demanded that the air board resign. [19] That one of the Air Quality Control Board members had owned stock in the company no doubt helped frame the board’s decision, though they claimed to have sold it before granting the waiver. [20]

The Eureka Times-Standard, offered its support (once again) as the defender of corporate personhood and L-P’s right to pillage the community in the name of capitalism, and argued that “Louisiana-Pacific shouldn’t be made to pay for the mistakes of others,” namely the negligence of the Air Quality Control Board. [21] However the publication’s logic was completely circular in that corporations like L-P routinely pressured such enforcement agencies to ignore existing laws, had their executives placed in positions of responsibility on such boards, and—failing that—threatened (and sometimes committed) capital flight if they don’t get their way, thus making such boards reticent to enforce those standards! [22] Certainly, this is how Maxxam had reacted to Jerry Partain’s brief display of independent thought.

This callous disregard for the health of the local communities angered local residents, and the Arcata City Council argued against Simpson being likewise granted a waiver. [23] On February 4, 1990, The City sued the Air Quality Control District, arguing that the board had a conflict of interest and that medical professionals and licensed doctors should at least be appointed to the board to balance the influence of pro-industry officials then dominating them. [24] Much to everyone’s surprise, on February 6, the waiver was at least temporarily blocked, and California State Attorney General Van de Kamp, who was somewhat progressive and receptive to the concerns of environmentalists requested that the Board deny it altogether. [25] Simpson, naturally, threatened to close their mill, arguing that the waiver’s denial threatened their ability to operate, [26] and this prompted the Eureka Times-Standard to excoriate Van De Kamp’s actions as “politically motivated” (as if the actions of the corporations and their capitalist media commissars weren’t) and again opine that corporations such as Simpson should be given carte blanche to pollute at will, all in the name of “free enterprise”. [27]

* * * * *

Corporate Timber had been making the “young growth is more beneficial than old growth” argument for years in defiance of repeated arguments to the contrary by environmentalists and biologists. The day after Bosco, Keene, and Hauser announced the terms of their so-called “timber pact” with Hurwitz and Merlo, the prestigious and widely read journal, Science, published the findings of a study discrediting the industry’s claims about young growth. In fact, the research showed, that during the 20th Century, the rapid deforestation of old growth conifer forests of the Pacific Northwest had actually dumped a “disproportionately large amount” of CO­­2 into the earth’s atmosphere in comparison to other land use changes during the same time. Mark Harmon of Oregon State University, one of the study’s researchers summed up the findings declaring:

“The conventional wisdom was that since young trees remove carbon from the environment more actively than older trees, harvesting the old growth would actually reduce problems with the greenhouse effect, but the natural processes are not nearly that simple and the theories do not hold up (under scrutiny). [28]

What the study showed, among other things, was that the CO­­2 was absorbed by the young trees and incorporated into their wood and remained there as long as the trees remained alive—even if immeasurably old. However, upon their harvest or death, that CO­­2 was then released into the atmosphere. The death and decay of ancient old growth trees did not have the same effect as their harvesting, however, because the woody debris cycle effectively transferred the carbon to other species in the process, this is now referred to as biological carbon sequestration. Lumber harvesting, on the other hand, represented a significant and invasive disruption of that cycle. By failing to account for all of the parts of an old growth forest, rather than just the harvestable timber, the corporations had once again quite literally failed to see the forest for the trees! [29]

* * * * *

This was but the latest domino to fall. More would soon follow. In 1973, the California Legislature had passed Z’berg-Nejedly, which was designed to regulate forest practices within the state of California with the goal of mixed usage, including long term preservation, recreation, and timber harvesting. According to the Environmental Protection Information Center (EPIC) , however:

“The Forest Practice Rules state that CDF ‘shall disapprove a plan as not conforming to the rules’ if it does not contain enough information to evaluate potential environmental effects, if it would cause ‘significant, long-term damage’ or cause a ‘taking’ of a threatened or endangered species or if it would cause irreparable harm to rare or endangered plant species…Over 99% of the THPs that are submitted, however, receive CDF’s reliable rubber stamp approval. At most CDF will encourage submitters to withdraw a THP if there are problems in giving it their approval, but most often a new THP is submitted and approved in its place which covers the exact same area and only differs from the original plan by small, cosmetic changes.” [30]

The claim made by EPIC as represented by the italicized text is an accusation that many environmental activists had been making for several years, and both Earth First! and EPIC were among those who most steadfastly made this point. Corporate Timber, the CDF, most gyppo operators—particularly those most enthralled by the corporations—and their “Wise Use” front groups continued to deny this accusation, even going as far to state the contrary position, that the existing rules were overly burdensome and additional regulations, like the proposed Forests Forever ballot initiative were unnecessary. [31] Challenging THPs was no easy task either, because access to information, including timber volume, on private forest holdings was as difficult as getting access to the land itself, because timber corporations considered the statistical information proprietary. [32] In spite of this, several times in recent years they had even attempted to scrap the THP process for individual harvests in favor of far more lax approval mechanisms, including annual timber inventory reviews (which would no doubt make approval of logging plans even easier), or even longer period harvest plans. [33]

Yet, challenges to THPs by concerned locals and/or environmental activists had been rising at an ever accelerating rate since EPIC vs. Johnson in 1985. Indeed, since Maxxam had raided Pacific Lumber, EPIC alone had filed numerous challenges to Pacific Lumber THPs. [34] CDF employees had even blown the proverbial whistle, claiming that their agency was indeed a “rubber stamp” for the corporations. [35] It was this ever increasing dissidence—among other factors, including an escalation of direct actions in the woods by Earth First! and workers’ resistance to corporate timber practices—spurred on to some extent by the IWW—that pushed Maxxam’s Charles Hurwitz and L-P’s Harry Merlo to meet with Doug Bosco, Barry Keene, and Dan Hauser to hammer out their so-called “accord”. [36] These events hadn’t gone unnoticed by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection either.

In March of 1989, the CDF commissioned a study by the private consulting firm of the Point Richmond, California based LSA Associates, Inc. to investigate why, in recent years, the CDF had sustained an increasing amount of litigation over its THPs. The majority of the legal challenges took place in “Region I”, California’s North Coast, or the so-called Redwood Empire, and were in response to plans to harvest old growth redwoods in particular. [37] The consulting firm spent nine months involved in and observing the THP review and decision making process. In some cases, for some specific THPs, this involved LSA consultants accompanying RPFs in their field inspections for pre-harvest inspections (PHIs). Usually these inspection teams consisted formally of the RPF and a professional wildlife biologist accompanied by the observing LSA personnel. LSA also observed the organization and preparation of official responses (ORs) to environmental comments documents submitted in response to specific THPs. The primary goal of the report was not to criticize the CDF or the BOF, but, in fact, to assist both in securing more favorable court judgments in the event of litigation. [38]

When LSA presented its findings, the results were astonishing. Without intending to do so, the firm confirmed just about every charge made by the CDF’s and BOF’s critics, and vindicated the environmental activists who had been claiming that the fox had been guarding the henhouse for years. [39] The report had been written by Dr Robert J. Hrubes, himself a former federal forester and economist, and it was so damning in its conclusions, the CDF initially tried to keep it a secret from board member Harold R. Walt who had been appointed the agency’s chair in March 1990, after serving on the BOF as one of its directors for seven years. The report had been released in December 1989, but Walt didn’t learn of its existence until mid-March from a meeting with a coalition of environmentalists, who had learned of the report before him. Upon confirming the report’s existence, he angrily ordered that it be made public. Upon doing so, he declared, “I hope that releasing this report, discussing it openly, and dealing decisively with the issues will be a starting point in blistering public confidence.” [40]

To begin with, LSA confirmed that the THP process was biased against the timber industry’s critics. The Forest Practices Act required the CDF to reach a decision for a THP within 35 days of its submission, and for most submissions, that was insufficient, but for controversial old growth THPs, it was impossible. In practice, the average time required to reach a decision on the latter was closer to six months. Corporate Timber had often tried to hide behind the 35-day rule, but judges had routinely granted critics of the THPs appeals for time extensions making a mockery of the process. In the recent EPIC and the Sierra Club vs. CDF case involving Headwaters, Humboldt County Superior Court Judge William Ferrogiarro concluded that the stipulated timeframe led to decisions based on “sheer sophistry”. A recent rule change by the BOF had added ten days to the review period, extending the time for review to 45 days, but according to LSA’s findings, this change was insignificant. [41]

Furthermore, for old growth THPs, the complex relationship between the CDF—whose mandate under California law was to facilitate resource extraction, specifically the harvesting of timber—and the Department of Fish and Game (DFG)—whose role it was to protect wilderness and wildlife, often resulted in interagency conflicts. LSA discovered that Corporate Timber firms often used this conflict to their advantage, usually using the CDF as a regulatory shield for their harvesting activity. Routinely, when the DFG requested “mitigations” in THPs—usually in response to pressure from concerned critics of the plans—the submitter would respond by arguing that the mitigations were infeasible, either being too costly or bringing about “unacceptable silvicultural ramifications.” Often the RPF would also declare that the burden fell on the DFG to prove the necessity of the mitigations, to which the CDF would respond by endorsing the RPF’s response, either by forwarding it to the DFG without critical response or by choosing to abstain from negotiations and discussions on the disputed points. LSA’s interpretation of the law and the legal rulings that had touched on the conflict suggested that the CDF was obligated to be more proactive in reviewing the mitigations demanded by the THPs’ critics. LSA further suggested that the rejection of various mitigations might ultimately prove to be justifiable—in some circumstances—but the CDF needed to exercise more independent judgment. [42]

In many cases, LSA discovered, mitigations were rejected by the CDF on dubious grounds. The most common rational given for rejection was that the proposed mitigations were incompatible with “maximum sustained yield” (MSY). However, the definition of MSY was a moving target depending upon one’s interests, making it nearly impossible to measure objectively. To corporate timber, MSY meant the maximization of merchantable timber from a given forest stand. To environmentalists, it meant the maximization of living forest biomass (being necessary for the long term viability) in the same. These were “clearly divergent agendas,” and for the CDF to reject proposed mitigations based on the timber industry’s definition of MSY was not likely to withstand judicial review in LSA’s opinion. [43]

A still more extreme and increasingly popular invocation by the submitter of THPs was that mitigations represented an infringement on their private property rights, or an “uncompensated taking”. This latter strategy was the brainchild of right wing think tanks and so called “Wise Use” organizations. These forces had cynically and successfully manipulated a very engrained culture of “rugged individualism” so prevalent in the rural American west to manufacture a consensus against increasingly stronger environmental ethics that evolved as human consciousness of the fragility and interconnectedness of the Earth’s ecology increased. From the reaction to environmentalism originated the so-called “Sagebrush Rebellion” which successfully—if falsely—attributed “environmentalism” to the whims of urban “elitists” (or “unwashed-out-of-town-jobless-hippies-on-drugs”) perhaps under the sway of hostile “outside” forces, even (gasp!) “Communism” (Horrors!). Corporate timber naturally found strategic advantages in using the “private property” defense. [44] LSA warned, however, that the Constitutional standards of taking were complex and that the CDFs understanding of them far too simplistic and not likely to stand up legally in court. [45]

Additionally, Title 14 Section 898 of the California Administrative Code required the RPF to determine if the proposed THP would have any significant adverse impact on the environment. The principle argument used by environmentalists and other critics of THPs in order to bolster their demands for mitigations, was that the harvest would indeed have adverse impacts. LSA found that only in the rarest instances, less than one-tenth of a percent of all cases, had a THP been submitted with a positive determination of significance. In not a single case had the CDF rejected the RPF’s negative determination. In effect, the THP had evolved into the functional equivalent of a “mitigated negative declaration”. Some foresters had even argued, and the CDF had consistently accepted, that for non-listed species, significant impacts would only occur if the viability of the species was threatened. In essence, they were determined to log until and unless strictly prohibited by the Endangered Species Act, a law that resource extraction corporations had been trying to abolish for years anyway. LSA found this standard to be overly restrictive and unsupported by established peer-reviewed professional biological science. The report declared,

“With respect to possible wildlife impacts, we believe the Department’s tacit endorsement of the almost-categorical judgment of non-significance is both practically and factually untenable…To categorically hold to the position that impacts are not significant, as the Department has essentially done to date, increasingly puts the credibility of the THP review process in jeopardy…While the motivations or concerns of both the RPF and CDF reviewing staff is understandable, aversion to the possible ramifications is not a defensible justification. And, in fact the long term chances for successfully seeing a THP through the review process and subsequent litigation are quite possibly enhanced by shifting the focus away from the significance issue and on to possible ‘overriding considerations’.” [46]

Thus, LSA unambiguously described the CDFs conduct a pattern of “tacit endorsement of categorical non-significance”. This was fancy legal jargon for saying that the CDF was indeed, “a rubber stamp” for Corporate Timber, as EPIC had been arguing now since its victory in the case EPIC vs. Johnson, and the recently decided EPIC and the Sierra Club vs. Maxxam.

The LSA report’s conclusion was the most damning of all to Corporate Timber and it vindicated the environmentalists. Among the points it made were these:

“From our perspective, the pattern of unfavorable court rulings is best viewed as a symptom of an underlying erosion of public support and endorsement of some of the more visible aspects of industrial forestry in California…the forestry community may be comforted by interpreting the opposition to the industrial forestry agenda as the agitation of the radical fringe but we cannot endorse that view…it is an unavoidable reality that even the most rural counties are undergoing fundamental changes associated with urbanization…The harsh truth is that the majority of the State’s population does not, and increasingly will not, support ‘business as usual’ policies such as rapid liquidation of the remaining privately-held old growth stands and conversion of sizable portions of the State’s timberlands to a wood fiber industry.

“As the recent events in Mendocino County associated with the planned relocation of processing capacity to Mexico clearly demonstrate (the opposition is not limited to the) ‘environmental community,’ but rather includes local labor leaders, some county supervisors, Congressional delegations, state assembly members, and the natural resources professional and academic community…the forestry community is perilously isolated from the general sentiments and values of the California and national electorate…

In too many circles, the program and its administration by CDF is perceived as generally failing to adequately regulate the actions of the timber industry. The Board and, to a lesser extent, the CDF are perceived as overly sympathetic to the corporate goals behind industrial forestry actions and insensitive to the public resource obligations of industrial landowners.

“In our view the Department is at a crises point (and we recommend the two following actions): (1) establishing a greater degree of independence from the industry it regulates; (2) asserting a stronger leadership role in forestry matters in California…

“Too many people perceive CDF as not aggressively enforcing the intent of the Forest Practices Act and the requirements of CEQA. While it is vital to maintain a working relationship with the industry, it is equally important to visibly demonstrate to the industry and the public that…(the CDF) is committed to its regulatory obligations even if it angers the industry.” [47]

This is not what Corporate Timber wanted to hear by any means. The recommendation was all but an endorsement of the changes to the regulatory process, including the composition of the Board of Forestry, that was being proposed by Forests Forever.

If the corporations were hoping that Harold Walt would ignore or downplay the report, they were soon to have their hopes dashed. In early April 1990, Walt signaled that he intended to take the report very seriously. He reassigned Len Theiss, the chief state forester for California’s North Coast region (who had rubber stamped a great many THPs) to other duties. He budgeted money for the CDF to hire its own biologists so that the DF&G biologists wouldn’t be constantly in conflict with those of the agency. “I want a healthy, viable timber industry that is putting more back into the ground than what it’s taking out. I want good forestry forever, not just a ‘boom or bust’ mentality,” he explained. [48]

This announcement did not bode well for the timber industry. Speaking for the Timber Association of California, Kevin Eckery announced that he had not yet read the report, but declared, “Contrary to the thrust of it, California has a very well-regulated timber industry. We believe current forest practice rules do indeed provide secure and perfected means of preserving our resources,” [49] but the words could not have been anything but hollow sounding to the proverbial imperial court that had just been, once and for all, shown to have no clothes.

The LSA report was hardly an aberration either. Everywhere news was breaking that proved that the foxes were indeed in charge of just about all of the henhouses with regards to environmental considerations. The GAO had recently determined that high level officials within the agency and Department of Interior had interfered with the listing process for the Northern Spotted Owl. The GAO also found that, in conflict with the Endangered Species Act, nonbiological considerations (read ‘political / economic’) had factored into the decision to not list it. [50] In June, the GAO would reveal that the US Government had failed to fully assess the environmental consequences of oil and gas development on millions of acres of public land, activity which mostly benefitted multinational energy corporations. [51]

All of this demonstrated that contrary to the rhetoric of the wise use movement, Earth First! was not the problem, it was an attempt at the solution. If the wildlife “trail” into Headwaters had given Redwood Summer a spark, the LSA report poured gasoline on the fire. Redwood Summer organizing meetings were already drawing huge numbers, far more than Earth First! or IWW meetings had managed to draw to this point. Soon they would double or even triple in size.

If history was any indication, the employing class giant would not simply lay down and let the little people tie it to the ground however. It would find other ways to remain uncontrolled and untamed. That notion quickly proved truthful. Shortly after returning home from one of these Redwood Summer organizing meetings, Judi Bari received a threatening phone call from Candace Boak who informed Bari that she had been watching the organizers, and to emphasize the point, Boak accurately described everyone who had been present at the meeting, and the cars they had driven. “Me and my husband John are coming over to visit you this weekend. We know where you live, over there in Redwood Valley,” she concluded ominously. [52] Bari responded, “That’s nice,” before Boak abruptly hung up the phone. Bari had tried to act nonchalantly but privately she had been scared out of her wits. Little did she realize that this was only the beginning.

[1] They Sure Don’t Make Hippies the Way They Used To, 1989, by Darryl Cherney

[2] I Had to be Born this Century, 1986, by Darryl Cherney

[3]“Forest Protectors Take the Initiative”, by Richard Johnson, Mendocino Country Environmentalist, November 1, 1989.

[4]“A Logger Speaks Out – An Interview with Walter Smith”, by Bruce Anderson, Anderson Valley Advertiser, July 4, 1990.

[5]“L-P, Simpson ranked in ‘Toxic 500’: Local Mills on Wildlife Group’s List of Worst Polluters nationally”, by Mario Christaldi, Eureka Times-Standard, August 16, 1989.

[6] “Labor, Activists Unite to Fight L-P”, by Crawdad Nelson, Anderson Valley Advertiser, January 17, 1990.

[7] See for example, “Toxic Survey Rips 2 Humboldt Mills: L-P, Simpson Emissions Cited”, by Eileen Klineman, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, Aug. 21, 1989, “Pulp Mills Face Tighter EPA Wastewater Rules”; UPI, Eureka Times-Standard, January 3, 1990; 1990; “Air Quality Decision Hurts”, letter to the editor by John Triska, Eureka Times-Standard, January 5, 1990; and “Pulp Mill Emission Levels Down: Cancer Risks Still Exceed Government Standards”, Eureka Times-Standard, January 13, 1990.

[8] Crawdad Nelson, January 17, 1990, op. cit.

[9] “Mill Towns”, editorial by Bob Martel, Country Activist, February 2, 1990.

[10] “The Scene at Simpson”, Dave Chism interviewed by Bruce Anderson, Anderson Valley Advertiser, June 27, 1990.

[11] “The Public Outlaw Show: Democracy is Not a Spectator Sport”, Dave Chism and Bob Cramer, interviewed by Dan Fortson on KMUD FM, November 27, 1997.

[12] “Union Making a Good Faith Effort”, letter to the editor by Robert Sylvester, Shop Steward, on behalf of the member­ship of AWPPW Local #67, Eureka Times-Standard, February 16, 1990.

[13] “Simpson Penalized”, EcoNews, August 1990.

[14]“Tank Collapse Will Cost Simpson”, by Charles Winkler, Eureka Times-Standard, July 10, 1990.

[15]“Simpson Worker at Issue with Ad”, letter to the editor by Kevin Truby, Eureka Times-Standard, June 14, 1990.

[16] “Simpson Workers Picket Boss’s Home”, Eureka Times-Standard, February 26, 1990.

[17] “Millworkers Want Talks”, letter to the editor by Mike Snell, AWPPW Local 67, Eureka Times-Standard, March 12, 1990.

[18] “L-P Emissions Spark Review of Air Quality Testing Rules”, Eureka Times-Standard, by David Forster,

[19] “Arcata Demands New Air Board: L-P Waiver Illegal, City Contends”, by Ed Lion, Eureka Times-Standard, January 26, 1990;

[20] “Board Member Sold L-P Stock Before Vote”, by David Forster, Eureka Times-Standard, January 24, 1990.

[21] “L-P Shouldn’t Pay for Others’ Errors”, edi­torial, Eureka Times-Standard, February 4, 1990.

[22] ““Environmental Group Challenges L-P Air Va­riance”, by David Forster, Eureka Times-Standard, February 7, 1990.

[23] “Arcata City Council Defers Action on Simpson’s Annexation Request”, by Ed Lion, Eureka Times-Standard, January 18, 1990; “Simpson Pulp Mill Project Hinges on Emissions Waiver”, by Charles Winkler, Eureka Times-Standard, January 30, 1990; “Deci­sion on Pulp Mill Emissions Delayed: Simpson Asked to Respond to Board Concerns”, by David Forster, Eureka Times-Standard, February 2, 1990; “Simp­son Considers its Options: Smoke Cleanup in Jeo­pardy, Exec Says”, Eureka Times-Standard, February 4, 1990.

[24] “Arcata Sues Air District: City Says Law Requires Doctor as Board Member”, by Ed Lion, Eureka Times-Standard, February 5, 1990.

[25] “Van de Kamp Asks Air Board to Deny Simpson Variance”, by David Forster, Eureka Times-Standard, February 7, 1990.

[26] “Simpson Air Waiver Denied: Officials Hint Decision Could Force Mill Closing”, by David Forster, Eureka Times-Standard, February 8, 1990.

[27] “Air Board’s Action Fogs Simpson Mill”, editorial, Eu­reka Times-Standard, February 11, 1990.

[28]“Study Disputes benefits of Old-Growth Replacement”, UPI Wire, Eureka Times-Standard, February 10, 1990.

[29]This is described in a much more recent study covered in “Factors Controlling Long- and Short-Term Sequestration of Atmospheric CO2 in a Mid-latitude Forest”, by Carol C Bradford, et. al, Science, November 2001

[30]“How a Timber Harvest Plan Works”, featured on the EPIC website at https://www.wildcalifornia.org/post/an-explanation-of-the-timber-harvest-plan-process. Emphasis added.

[31] For example, see “State has Strictest Forest Rules in Nation”, letter to the editor by Paula M. Langager, Eureka Times-Standard, Sept. 28, 1990.

[32]“Lawmakers’ Ignorance Forces Forest Initiative”, Lynn Ryan interviewed by David Forester, Eureka Times-Standard, September 14, 1990.

[33]“Timber Business to Cut Costs? Draft Legislation Proposes Long-Term Harvest Plan for State”, by Gina Bentzley, Eureka Times-Standard, November 18, 1985.

[34] “New Battles in the Maxxam Campaign”, by Greg King and Berberis Nervose, Earth First! Journal, Eostar / March 21, 1989.

[35] “Two Forestry Employees Testify at PALCO Trial”, by Marie Gravelle, Eureka Times-Standard, September 4, 1987.

[36] “The Latest on Headwaters Forest: Maxxam Violates Accord, Dissects Headwaters”, By Greg King – Country Activist, March 1990 and Earth First! Journal, Eostar / March 22, 1990.

[37]“An Interview With Kelpie Wilson”, by Sharon Seidenstien, Ecology Center Newsletter, October 1990.

[38]Hrubes, Dr. Robert J., Final Report – Conclusions and Recommendations for Strengthening the Review and Evaluation of Timber Harvest Plans; Prepared for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, LSA Associates, Inc., Point Richmond, California, March 1990.

[39]“Kelpie Wilson”, Seidenstien, October 1990, op. cit.

[40]“New CDF Chief Pledges Forestry Reforms”, by Mike Geniella, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, April 3, 1990.

[41]Hrubes, op. cit.

[42]Hrubes, op. cit.

[43]Hrubes, op. cit.

[44] Deal, Carl, The Greenpeace Guide to Anti-Environmental Organizations, Berkeley, CA., Odonian Press - The Real Story series, 1993, pages 6-22.

[45]Hrubes, op. cit.

[46]Hrubes, op. cit.

[47]Hrubes, op. cit.

[48]Geniella, April 3, 1990, op. cit.

[49]Geniella, April 3, 1990, op. cit.

[50]“Old Growth vs. Old Mindsets”, by Mitch Freedman, Earth First! Journal, Beltane / May 1, 1989.

[51]“Environmental Factors Ignored”, UPI Wire, Eureka Times-Standard, July 3, 1990.

[52] “The Earth First! Car Bombing”, by Judi Bari, Earth First! Journal, Brigid / February 2, 1994.

Tags: Redwood UprisingJudi BariSteve OngerthIndustrial Workers of the World (IWW)Earth First!Earth First! - IWW Local 1Walter SmithDon Nelsontimber workers

Ibrahim Coulibaly the president of PAFO brought today, on behalf of the organisations of family farmers and small producers  in the Farmers Forum the message to the Governing Council of IFAD that meets on the 14 and 15 of Februry directly after the Farmers Forum.

On the 12th and the 13th of February LVC, together with other global and regional organisations of farmers, peasants and other small food producers participated to the 8th IFAD Farmers’ Forum.

Since the last Farmers Forum in 2020, the Farmers Organizations have formally requested Observer Status on the Executive Board of IFAD. In the interim, the world has undergone significant transformations. The pandemic underscored the critical significance of local access to food and food production, the climate crisis deepened, exposing even more the destructive effects of large scale industrialized production and the level of war and conflict increased. Volatile prices on the global markets because of speculation on main commodities showed the vulnerability because of the dependencies on the global food market. As a result governments increasingly understood the importance of agroecological food production for local markets that does not depend on massive imports of industrial inputs such as chemical fertilizers and industrial seeds.

The IFAD mission statement states “to make rural economies and food systems more inclusive, productive, resilient and sustainable investing in the millions of people who are most at risk of being left behind: poor, small-scale food producers, women, young people and other vulnerable groups living in rural areas”. In the Farmers Forum at national, regional and international level organisations of farmers, peasants and other small food producers enter in a dialogue with IFAD.

As a result of in-depth exchange among farmers organisations and IFAD during the Forum following demands put forward:

• to integrate more relevant and ambitious peasant agroecology and other sustainable and resilient practices, including organic farming, into all its projects and programs.
• to commit to support redistributive land policies instead of market based approaches, working directly with member states and recognizing the leadership of the FAO, towards a new international conference for agrarian reform and to support the implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security,
• to support structural public policies in support of producers for the fair sharing of the rights to use land, policies to support the massification of peasants agroecology, market regulation policies, in order to ensure the stability of local markets, fair prices that cover the costs of a sustainable production and decent revenues for farmers, peasants, fishermen, livestock producers, pastoralists and all small-scale food producers and policies to develop infrastructures that small scale producers need.
• to strengthen FAFO processes globally, involving FOs in IFAD programs at all levels, boosting their role in resource mobilization, providing clear collaboration guidelines, making FO inclusion a project prerequisite for genuine participation, and ensuring ongoing dialogue with FOs at the country level.

These policies must be based on fundamental human rights and respecting existing international frameworks such as the UNDFF, the UNDROP and on food sovereignty principles. It is key for IFAD to support the implementation of the UNDROP at all levels, by funding specific programs at regional and national level, and by proactively engage in the newly created UN Working Group of Experts on Peasants’ Rights and in all other relevant UN bodies and mechanisms. In general it remains essential to strengthen the multilateral system and inclusive spaces like the CFS and its Civil Society and Indigenous Peoples Mechanism.

In their common statement the organisations urge governments to provide more funds to IFAD to support these important public policies and programs. In this respect it is central that IFAD funds should not be given to activities that undermine the existence of small-scale food producers and to activities for compensation related to climate and biodiversity.

The organisations request to stop the financing of projects involving large-scale land acquisitions, land grabbing and speculative investments from private actors and development banks and propose to increase the funding for more sustainable long-term investment, strengthening Farmer Organisations’ internal capacity through direct support to farmer organizations.

To read the full speech by Ibrahim Coulibaly, representing farmers’ organizations following the Farmers’ Forum 2024, please refer to the document below.

Demands-for-the-governing-council-1Download

The post 8th Farmers Forum – Key Demands: Enhance the autonomy of small-scale food producers appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

India’s capital city, New Delhi, is once again on the edge.

Thousands of farmers from the neighboring state of Punjab are marching toward the metropolis, demanding a legal assurance of a minimum support price for their crops. With national elections looming in a couple of months, the ruling coalition is concerned that a large-scale mobilization akin to the one seen in 2020 could spell trouble for them. Farmers are convinced that governments only heed their demands around election time. And so, the march continues.

On February 13th, at the Shambu border between Haryana and Punjab, marching farmers were met with tear gas and rubber bullets. Closer to the national capital, media reports depict main arterial roads fortified with iron fences, metal rings, and nails on the ground. Farmers liken the area to a war zone and question such tactics in a nation that prides itself on its democratic values. Local workers who rely on the route to commute between their workplaces and homes now trek several miles daily as vehicular traffic is halted.

Leaders of the Samyukt Kisan Morcha (SKM), which spearheaded the historic 2020 protests, have clarified that they are not organizing the current march. Instead, it is organized by groups once part of the 2020 mobilizations but have since broken away to operate independently from the larger SKM coalition. Nonetheless, the SKM has defended everyone’s right to protest and repeated their call for a one-day nationwide strike by farmers and trade unions on February 16th, especially in the rural areas. The unions calling for this national strike have demanded pensions for farmers, minimum support price for crops, implementation of the old pension scheme, and the withdrawal of the amendment of labour laws.

Beneath the surface of these details and intricacies lies the dire state of Indian agriculture today.

Between 1991 and 2011, nearly 15 million farmers abandoned farming to seek other means of livelihood. While data for the last decade remains unavailable, most Indian cities have witnessed a significant influx of laborers, indicating rural distress. One major factor rendering agriculture unviable for many small-scale Indian farmers is the meager returns they receive.

In a 2022 interview with Thirdpole, Devinder Sharma, a food and trade analyst, elucidated this issue, citing a study by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development that revealed stagnant farm gate prices for agricultural products from 1985 to 2005, adjusted for inflation. Another study by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development and the Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations estimated that Indian farmers lost USD 600 billion from 2000 to 2016. Sharma highlighted the stark reality that, in 2016, the annual per capita earnings from farming in 17 states—half the country—amounted to less than USD 270, or less than USD 23 per month.

Nalla Gounder, a farmer from Tamil Nadu, poignantly asks, “In just the last decade alone, the selling price of coconut has halved while the cost of farm labor has doubled. How do you expect farmers to survive?”

The escalating frequency of climate catastrophes, including hailstorms, untimely rains, prolonged droughts, and dwindling water sources, further compounds the challenges of achieving a successful harvest. Over the past 30 years, input costs have steadily risen while selling prices have failed to keep pace. Consequently, half of rural farming households find themselves in debt, with suicides tragically becoming a desperate means of escape.

Farmers are at their wits’ end. Clinging to their last straws for survival, they firmly believe that a legally guaranteed minimum support price would, at the very least, prevent their produce from being sold at suppressed prices.

However, enacting such a law is easier said than done. India’s membership in the World Trade Organization has exposed its public food security and procurement programs to repeated attacks from export-oriented countries, particularly the United States, labeling them as ‘trade-distorting.’ These countries view any domestic support offered to Indian farmers as a hindrance to market access. Even proposed special safeguard mechanisms aimed at enabling national governments to control the influx of cheap imports have been contentious points during agricultural negotiations at the WTO. For developing nations like India, the domestic support they provide to farmers – including the minimum support price – is crucial for sustaining rural economies.

Caught in this quagmire, farmers bear the brunt of the situation.

The existing minimum support price offered by the Indian government covers only 23 crops, and farmers have long argued that these prices barely cover production costs. They advocate for a redefined methodology for determining cost of cultivation by including rentals and interest for owned land and fixed capital assets. They demand that the minimum support price is at least 50% higher than this revised input cost. A 2006 report, often referred to as the Swaminathan Commission Report in India, recommended that the MSP should be at least 50% higher than the weighted average cost of production. However, this recommendation has remained unaddressed.

In Bangalore, during the commemoration of the 88th birth anniversary of legendary peasant leader Prof. M D Nanjudaswamy in Karnataka, Rakesh Tikat of the Bhartiya Kisan Union, a prominent figure from the 2020 agitation, emphasized the importance of implementing the recommendations made by M S Swaminathan, rather than merely honoring him posthumously.

“It is good that the government has honored M S Swaminathan with the highest civilian honor posthumously. But what is more important for farmers is that governments implement what M S Swaminathan recommended, and to turn it into a legal guarantee.”

1 tractor, 1 village, 15 people, 10 days – the formula that sustained a peasant movement for 13 months in India

In 2020, the Indian government introduced three contentious farm laws, which farmers alleged aimed to corporatize the agricultural system without addressing the root causes of distress. The vehement protests led by farmers for 13 months forced the Indian government to withdraw these laws.

Tikait outlined their strategy during the protests, “To protest for 13 months was not easy, as it stretched across many seasons. So we followed a formula where each village would send one tractor carrying 15 people to the Delhi border and after 10 days they would return while another batch from the village replaced them. It was a show of strength and solidarity by India’s farmers and it emerged from this connected reality of falling incomes and increased expenses.”

Farmer leader Rakesh Tikait addressing the farmers in Karnataka on 13th February

While withdrawing the laws in 2021, the Indian government also pledged to address the issue of Minimum Support Price, yet no progress has been made since.

Speaking to the TRT World during the commemoration on February 13th, Chukki Nanjudaswamy from the Karnataka State Farmers Association lamented the lack of government action regarding rural distress and the absence of legislation guaranteeing the minimum support price. “We have been the victims of a neo-liberal system and climate catastrophes. No governments are looking into it. By now they should have at least held a serious discussion in the Parliament. More than 25% of our population have left rural areas in the last decade.”

Devinder Sharma, also present at the ceremony in Bangalore, highlighted the global nature of the crisis among peasant farmers, citing ongoing protests in Europe demanding fair prices for produce and greater state support for agroecological transition. He warned against the dangers of globalization, echoing Prof. M D Nanjundaswamy’s earlier warnings about its implications for farmers.

“From Europe to India, small-scale food producers are taking to the streets to protest against attempts to render agriculture unviable for them. As the global trend shifts toward industrial agriculture and ag-tech, with large-scale food tech factories emerging, the traditional model of farming faces existential threats.”, he said. Sharma also pointed out instances of lab-made proteins replacing real ones, such as the recent approval of lab-grown meat in the US. He warned that this trend is pushing agriculture toward a dystopian future where farmers are marginalized, echoing concerns raised by Prof. M D Nanjundaswamy decades ago.

“The plight of farmers in India is a microcosm of a global crisis affecting small-scale farmers worldwide. In 2020, Indian farmers showed their resilience by protesting for 13 months. We can do that again, and our villages are closely watching what is going on. The government can bring a resolution in no time if they sincerely wish to. Just bring the law that assures MSP,” reminds Yudhvir Singh of the Bhartiya Kisan Union, who also attended the birth anniversary event of Prof M D Nanjudaswamy.

From left peasant leaders Yudhvir Singh, Anasuyamma, Rakesh Tikait and T Gangadhar pay respect to Prof MD Nanjudaswamy at the commemoration event in Bangalore on the 13th of February

“Prof MDN had this uncanny ability to connect global struggles, as he recognized the shared realities of peasant farmers everywhere. He was among the founders of the global peasant movement La Via Campesina thirty years ago, an excellent organizer who brought many farmers’ movements together. Today is a day to remember his legacy as we witness once again this global mobilization by small-scale farmers everywhere for better prices.” Prof Ravivarma Kumar ex-attorney general of Karnataka and also the current International Coordination Committee member of La Via Campesina remembered the legendary peasant leader.

The Karnataka State Farmers Association (KRRS) that organized the Bangalore event also issued a resolution, calling upon the Indian government to protect its public food stock and procurement programs, and domestic support on farm inputs at the 13th WTO Ministerial to be held in Abu Dhabi later this month. “India should resist pressure from these developed countries, as it could compromise the food security of other developing nations, including India itself. To ensure the sovereignty of farmers, as advocated and championed by the KRRS since the 1990s, we demand keeping agriculture outside WTO negotiations.” the resolution reads.

The state farmers’ association also condemned Israel’s attack on Gaza. “We demand and call upon our government to intervene and support the rallying global call for peace in Gaza, demand an immediate end to this war and ask Israel for immediate withdrawal of its troops and save the 5 million Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank from starvation, death and murder.”

The resolution also called for strict prohibition of experimentation and field trials of all transgenic crops, including transgenic Herbicide Tolerant mustard. “Introducing herbicide-tolerant mustard into farmers’ fields under the guise of hybrid technology is misleading, especially when non-genetically modified hybrids are readily available. The Karnataka government can set a strong precedent for other states by banning transgenic mustard and all other GM crops in the state and urging the central government to revoke its earlier approval.”, it stated.

Cover Image: File photo from 2021 protests

The post Indian farmers are protesting again. Legal guarantee on Minimum Support Price is the key demand appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.