Ana Cristina Soprani, 31 anos (Farias/Linhares)
(See more from Cristina in Part 5)
Cristina is an industrious farmer and mother of three children who works on her family land in Farias. She and her partner, Elias (see Part 3) are active in the Movimento dos Pequenos Agricultores (MPA). Her family has struggled years of repression from the eucalyptus plantations companies and now against the onset of ‘reforestation’ credits for the Brazilian carbon market.
“I was born and raised on this land. My parents came here more or less in the 50s and 60s. They are of Italian descent and first came to the mountainous lands as it was intended at the time: the highlands were for the descendants of Italians, for workers who came to explore; at first the flat lands were not explored. Then they came down from the mountains and by chance came to stop in this flat land region. Then it was still almost all forest and agriculture and worked in a traditional way. Despite bringing some customs of Europe to burn and deforest for planting, they still retained many green areas and native forests. But when Vale do Rio Doce arrived in our region through a company Docemade, it pretended to work with the peasant farmers and encouraged them to sell their lands to the company.
At first they said it would be a great opportunity because they would have money in the bank and with this money they could live a good, long life and they also offered employment to the workers.
Many people sold their lands but others did not want to sell. Those who sold, put the money in the bank, but before long they turned to this employment which only lasted for one year while the company was being built. After they were unemployed and had no more land or money, they were forced to move to the outskirts of cities. Those who resisted here have come under very strong repression from the company. My parents say that the company hired people to say that if they stayed there, they would be blamed for everything that was about to happen with eucalyptus, although the entire area was owned by the company. And they were becoming more isolated. So whatever happened to the company would be blamed on them.
They managed to convince so many farmers to sell their land. Some still have not sold. My family resisted, stood by and did not want to sell the land. As a final strategy by the company, they made an agreement with other farmers so that the properties would be invaded by armed farmers accusing the company of stealing firewood to make charcoal. It was a way to continue pushing the farmers to sell their lands, to have more space for expansion of eucalyptus plantations in the region. To the extent that the company was buying the land, they finally used a D8 tractor with very large chains to destroy the area, they pulled everything down, all of the fruit trees and native trees. Farmers remember it with a lot of heart ache because they had a commitment to that land, and that was all destroyed so that the company could appropriate the land. Today there are few farmers in this region.
The company has a policy of saying they are a “good neighbor”, this is much more external than internal. There “reforestation” projects borders our streams. Inside the territory of the company there are no more streams, they are all dried up, in these places there is no longer any kind of life, except the morbid life of eucalyptus which for us does not produce anything. Vale and Fibria began an environmental policy which stated that they had to plant native tree saplings on the river banks and streams to reforest the small farmers’ areas.
Many are doing this because they know the importance of reforestation and have a conservation area, however there is a very big question at stake because on the company lands many streams have been destroyed and then when it comes to all these legal apparati, with documents to be signed by farmers, we understand that the company uses this for carbon credits, as if the company was doing the work. But the company uses our work, our lands, our labor so that the company can say that it is socially just and environmentally responsible, a thing that historically we know is a lie. Historically the company destroyed, felled trees without any scruples and it is something that they still continue to do. In 2006, on the banks of the stream Jacutinga, the company cleared several hectares of native forest in a preservation area and if it had not been for the region’s farmers, they would have destroyed everything. Farmers came forward and said, “Not another destruction!”
We realized that they have a discourse that is far from reality, including the use of public resources for the benefit of private companies, the use of lands from small farmers who resisted all of the pressure from these companies, and used the good will of the people that were naïve to their plans to say that the company is reforesting and conserving areas for preservation. It’s a lie. Those who do this preservation are the farmers; heroically, bravely, on a mission to produce food as a way of resistance in the countryside.
This policy of ‘offsets’ by the company who is destroying – has deforested, has used tractors to destroy all kinds of life – in order to make way for eucalyptus and then have the nerve to come back and say that in a partnership with Vale, Fibria will reforest areas on our properties, on those who have resisted all of their oppression, is a policy that is such a big lie! Because the whole process of preservation is not being done by the companies, it is being done by the local farmers.
One has to admit that the government still pays these companies to make these compensation [offset] projects. We know that despite the government paying for the saplings and the whole legal process, we know who actually does the work and we are not companies and it is unfair to use it later as if they were credits for these companies to continue polluting, degrading, continue deforesting and taking the life from environments, diversity, to give place to a monoculture. It is very unfair regardless if we are analyzing this from a social, environmental, ecological or human standpoint.”