Doprinos Esther Ouwehand debati o Održivom razvoju i okolišu


30 siječnja 2017

Dobar liberalni princip je da svojom slobodom ne ugrožavaš slobodu drugog. Slobodan si da radiš kako želiš, ali ta sloboda prestaje ondje gdje počinje štetiti drugome. To je svakako slučaj ako zemlju prepuštaš sljedećoj generaciji u mnogo lošijem stanju nego u kojem si je sam pronašao. U ovom trenutku se način na koji se mi na Zapadu ponašamo odražava na slobodu i životnu situaciju drugih. To je jednostavno loše. Gotovo. Ne trebamo se zavaravati.

Jedna od najbitnijih stavki u ovoj priči je krčenje šuma. To je diljem svijeta jedan od glavnih uzročnika gubitka bioraznolikosti i klimatskih promjena. Već nas 200 godina upozoravaju da je krčenje šuma prijeti otstanku čovjeka. No, još uvijek nismo zaustavili uništenje prašuma. Što je još gore, krčenje šuma prolazi proces “greenwasha” – pravimo se da je krčenje održivo u nizozemskom upravljanju okolišem. Stranka za životinje se bori da se to zaustavi. Počnimo onda s održivom kupnjom koja opravdava krčenje šuma u Maleziji. Tako dolazimo do krčenja sa svrhom uvoza biogoriva. Malezijsko tvrdo drvo može se kupovati pod krinkom održive kupnje. Nakon dugogodišnje borbe teški je lobby pobijedio bioraznolikost, klimu i stanovnike malezijskih prašuma. Prethodnik sadašnjeg premijera iz stranke CDA-huize, predložio je da se malezijsko tvrdo drvo, koje je poznato da nije održivo, “greenwasha”. To je tada bilo i za očekivati, s obzirom o kojoj se stranci i osobi radilo, no što sad ne mogu shvatiti je da premijer is PvdA-huize koji ima održivost na pameti, želi završiti ovaj prljavi poslić.

činjenice su sljedeće: malezijska vlada odbija suradnju s nizozemskim istraživanjem terena. Istraživanje terena koje se onda moglo izvesti od strane TPAC-a ni na koji način ne zadovoljava stvarno stanje. Predstavnike autohtonih naroda se uopće nije konzultiralo. Većina se nije osjećala sigurno za razgovor, nisu bili u blizini ili ih uopće nisu potražili. Program uopće nije postavio TPAC, već malezijska vlada. Kad bi student tako napisao svoj završni rad, dobio bi negativnu ocjenu. No, zar je ovo onda zbilja dovoljno dobro da se na tome bazira ophođenje s tim prostorom? Prema istraživanju Sahabat Alam Malaysia (SAM) ispada da se prava autohtonog stanovništva i dalje sistematski ignorira i da se krčenje ilegalno provodi na njihovoj zemlji. Citiram: “Ljudi u autohtonim naseljima u malezijskim šumama strašno pate. Njihove šume, voćnjaci i vrtovi bivaju uništeni, rijeke zagađene, životinje i ribe nestaju i dolaze bolesti, dok je težak pristup lijekovima u prašumi. Sve češće se mora kupovati hrana jer biva uništeno ono što bi inače šuma pružala. Ponekad uništavaju i grobna mjesta.” Održiva ta naša kupnja, kako da ne! Tko će nas shvatiti ozbiljno ako nastavimo s ovime?

Pitat ću premijera za širi kontekst. Zašto se stvari nazivaju održivim i kada nisu održive? Moramo se zajedno dobrano potruditi da zaustavimo klimatske promjene i gubitak bioraznolikosti. Za to nam svima treba: većina, poslovni svijet i građani. Kada se ljudima stalno nudi lažna održivost, pitam se što to svima radi za motivaciju da zajedno radimo na svijetu budućnosti. Želi li premijer i ovome dati širi kontekst? Jer nazivajući sve održivim i kad to očito nije po mom mišljenju ima samo štetne utjecaje koje si ne možemo dozvoliti.

Isto vrijedi i za biogoriva, vrlo specifično, za palmino ulje iz Malezije, Indonezije i drugih zemalja u kojima se masovno niču ogromne plantaže gdje su donedavno bile prašume. Uljana repica je jedna devastirajuća biljka koju diljem svijeta sadimo, a soja nije daleko od nje. Ne nalaze se samo u polovici proizvoda koje nalazimo u trgovinama, već i u tanku kao biogorivo. To mora stati. Premijer ima plan da dio biogoriva koje proizlazi iz biljaka kao što je uljana repica udvostruči. To je posve nelogično. Drago mi je da je i VVD kritičan po tom pitanju. Tako ne pomažemo klimi. Bioraznolikost pada na još niže razine. Ljude se tjera sa njihove zemlje, truju se rijeke i kvaliteta zraka u jugoistočnoj Aziji je zbog paljenja prašuma da bi dobile plantaže na najnižoj razini. Udio konvencionalnih biogoriva ne treba se povećavati, već smanjivati do 2020.

izgleda da parlament može toliko utjecati na premijera da svakako ne udvostručuje brojke, te da se ne zalaže za povećanje biogoriva i palminog ulja. Proizvodnja palminog ulja dakako ne može nestati u našoj prehrambenoj industriji. Uvoz palminog ulja mora posve stati. Može li premijer na to reagirati? Ako mi svi zajedno kažemo da se palmino ulje ne može koristiti kao biogorivo – čime bih ja bila vrlo zadovoljna – morat ćemo se onda založiti i za to da palmino ulje ne bude dio prehrambene industrije, jer je proizvodnja jednako štetna. I po tom pitanju ćemo se morati jako potruditi!

Don’t use your freedom to restrict the freedom of others: a sound liberal principle. You are free to do as you please, but that freedom ends as soon as you start hampering others – which is definitely the case when you leave the earth in a worse state than you found it. Already, our behaviour in the West has had serious consequences for the freedom and circumstances of others. And let us be frank: that is wrong. It is as simple as that.

A central element in this story is deforestation; one of the main causes of biodiversity loss and climate change worldwide. For 200 years now, we have been warned about the dangers of deforestation to human survival. And still we have not put an end to the destruction of primeval forests. On the contrary, in the Dutch environmental policy, deforestation is “greenwashed” – we pretend it to be sustainable. The Party for the Animals will continue to fight this.

Starting with the sustainable purchasing policy legitimising deforestation in Malaysia, we will automatically come to deforestation in favour of biofuel imports. Malaysian hardwood can be procured according to the sustainable purchasing policy. After a longstanding battle, the powerful lobby has triumphed not only over biodiversity and climate, but over the inhabitants of the Malaysian forests. Our former Minister of Infrastructure and the Environment, a member of the Dutch Christian-democratic party CDA, made the suggestion to greenwash Malaysian hardwood, even though it is known to be non-sustainable. This was to be expected, considering the cabinet he was in. However, the fact that our current Minister of Infrastructure and the Environment, a member of the Dutch Labour Party (PVDA) and someone who values sustainability, is finishing this dirty job is inconceivable.

These are the facts: the Malaysian government was refusing to cooperate in a field study requested by the Netherlands. The study, which was eventually executed by the Timber Procurement Assessment Committee (TPAC), had nothing whatsoever to do with establishing the truth. Representatives of indigenous peoples were barely consulted. They either did not feel safe enough to talk, or they were not around and were not visited. The programme was not established by TPAC, but by the Malaysian government. If a student would write their thesis in this manner, they would undoubtedly fail. Are we then supposed to settle for this study to base our entire policy on? Research of environmental organisation Sahabat Alam Malaysia (SAM) shows that the rights of indigenous people are still systematically violated and that their land is used for large-scale illegal deforestation. I quote: “The people in indigenous villages in the Malaysian forests are suffering heavily from the timber harvesting. Their forests, fruit trees and gardens are destroyed and their rivers poisoned, fish and other animals disappear and the number of diseases increases, while access to medication from the rainforests becomes more difficult. Increasingly, people are forced to buy their food instead of grow it, while their revenues from the forests decline. Occasionally, even cemeteries are destroyed.” Very sustainable indeed, our purchasing policy! If we continue down this path, who will take us seriously?

I also ask the minister about the broader context: why are things that are not sustainable still called sustainable? We should all do our very best to end climate change and the loss of biodiversity, together. And we are going to need everyone: the government, the industry and the citizens. When constantly confronted with fake sustainability, I wonder what it will do to the public´s drive to work together towards a sustainable planet. Will the minister be prepared to comment on that broader context? In my experience, calling things sustainable that are demonstrably not, has major negative side effects which we simply cannot allow. The same goes for biofuels and, more specifically, palm oil in Malaysia, Indonesia and other countries where palm-oil plantations are popping up on a large scale, on areas that until recently had been rainforests and bogs. Palm oil is one of the most destructive crops in the world, followed closely by soy. It is not only used as a cheap filler product in more than half the products in the supermarkets, but also as a biofuel in our tanks. This has to stop. The minister intends to more than double the share of biofuels consisting of food crops such as palm oil, which is truly illogical. I am pleased that conservative-liberal party VVD is also critical of this plan. It will not be of any help to the climate. In fact, the loss of biodiversity will only accelerate. People are driven from their land, rivers are poisoned and the major forest fires for the establishment of new plantations have made the air quality in South East Asia – quite literally – suffocating. Consequently, the share of conventional biofuels should not be increased, but be brought down to zero, by 2020 at the latest.

It seems the Lower House will be able to encourage the minister to at least maintain double counting and, consequently, prevent her from increasing the share of palm oil in biofuels. Subsequently, the palm oil industry itself should of course not be used for our food industry: the import of palm oil needs to be stopped in its entirety. Would the minister care to respond to that? If we all stick together in saying that palm oil should not be used as a biofuel – which would make me very happy – we will have to work hard to make sure that it is also not used as a standard filler product in our food. After all, its production is just as harmful.