Rio Tinto’s biodiversity offset in Madagascar Double landgrab in the name of biodiversity?

A field report by WRM and Re:Common Rio Tinto’s biodiversity offset in Madagascar

Double landgrab in the name of biodiversity?

A field report by WRM and Re:Common Credits

Written by Jutta Kill and Giulia Franchi Editor: Ronnie Hall Translation: Junassye Rabemazaka Photo: Jutta Kill Graphic design: Carlo Dojmi di Delupis

Produced by World Rainforest Movement - wrm.org.uy Re:Common - www.recommon.org with the collaboration of Colectif TANY - http://terresmalgaches.info/

This document has been produced with the financial contribution from Misereor (Germany) and Swedish public development co-operation aid through the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation, SSNC. The views herein shall not necessarily be taken to reflect the official opinion of SSNC, Misereor or their donors.

March 2016 Table of Contents

Introduction 4

1. Voices from the villages: “It’s unfair” 9

2. What are biodiversity offsets? 17

3. The Rio Tinto QMM biodiversity offset project 23

4. The Bemangidy-Ivohibe biodiversity offset site 32

5. Conservation groups linked to the Bemangidy biodiversity offset 35

6. Reflections about the field investigation 38

7. What we learned about the Rio Tinto QMM biodiversity offset at Bemangidy 43

Further information 45

Endnotes 46 Introduction

n recent years mining Fort Dauphin, also in Madagascar’s companies have become Anosy region. Iactively engaged in Rio Tinto’s project also involves promoting ‘biodiversity the International Union for the offsetting’ as a way of Conservation of Nature (IUCN),2 Kew and Missouri Botanical ‘greening’ the mining sector. Gardens, international and Malagasy conservation NGOs (including Biodiversity offsets are effectively a the national partner of BirdLife promise to make up for destroying International), and a Biodiversity biodiversity in one location by Advisory Committee with members protecting biodiversity said to be at risk from academia and conservation of being said to be at risk elsewhere. In NGOs. practice, this gives companies a licence to continue with environmentally Many glossy brochures - published destructive operations. As a result by IUCN, BirdLife International, the the use of biodiversity offsetting is World Business Council on Sustainable expanding in the mining, monoculture Development, and the Business and plantations, large infrastructure, Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP) hydropower dams etc. industries. for example - showcase the Rio Tinto It also helps corporations to attract QMM initiative as an exemplary financing (...).. biodiversity offset initiative. They repeat the mining giant’s promise that mining The Rio Tinto QMM1 biodiversity will not only compensate for biodiversity offset project in the Anosy region of loss but even have a “Net Positive southeastern Madagascar is probably Impact” on biodiversity in the end. the most widely advertised offset project in the mining sector. It is Rio Tinto claims that the QMM intended to compensate for biodiversity ilmenite mine at Fort Dauphin has a loss resulting from the destruction of “Net Positive Impact” on biodiversity a unique and rare coastal forest at Rio for two reasons. Firstly, they argue Tinto QMM’s ilmenite mining site at that the forests within the mining

6 concession would have been destroyed Land traditionally used for grazing and subsistence anyway by the local population over food production at the edge of Tsitongambarika forest near the Bemangidy biodiversity offset site. the coming decades. This narrative has been questioned in studies tracing the colonial roots of the argument that presents an image of traditional land information about how communities use of Malagasy people as ‘irrational’ engaged in or affected by the or ‘inefficient’.3 Secondly, the company biodiversity offset project itself (i.e. argues that it will pay for restoration outside the mining concession) are of overused forests at both the mining impacted. and various biodiversity offset sites, so that biodiversity in these forests can What do those most directly affected recover.4 by the Rio Tinto QMM biodiversity offset make of this pilot initiative in the Academic studies have produced mining sector? detailed descriptions comparing the species in the forest at the offset site A joint Re:Common and World and in the forest that will be destroyed Rainforest Movement (WRM) field by the Rio Tinto QMM ilmenite investigation in September 2015 sought mine. Journal articles have analysed the views of villagers living in the the impact of mining on peasant vicinity of a Rio Tinto QMM offset communities and fisherfolk in the project site. In particular, we visited immediate vicinity of the mining communities living near Bemangidy, concession. Missing, however, is one of the three sites that make up the

7 Rio Tinto QMM biodiversity offset Villagers felt that restrictions had been plan for the company’s Fort Dauphin imposed without negotiation and with ilmenite mine.5 little regard for their situation. Income- generating alternatives to alleviate the We found that community access to loss of access to the forest had been the forest had been severely restricted, promised but have yet to materialise that little information has been made while severe restrictions on community available to communities about what forest use are already in place. A biodiversity offsets projects actually meeting with a conservation NGO in are. Communities have received even charge of implementation also revealed less information about the industries that ethically deplorable methods have financing or buying ‘offset credits’ been used to ensure compliance with from such projects (often airlines and these restrictions on forest use (see transnational corporations from the Section 6, Reflections on the Field mining, oil, or agribusiness sectors) Investigation, for more detail). or why they do so (for more detail see Chapter 2, ‘What are Biodiversity With this report we hope to advance Offset Projects?’). The communities the critical analysis of biodiversity we visited had not been informed that offsets by: what had been presented to them as a “conservation project” was actually • Sharing information with designed to compensate for Rio Tinto communities affected by or QMM’s ilmenite mine destroying approached to participate in unique and rare littoral forest near the biodiversity offset projects. We city of Fort Dauphin, some 50 km to believe it is particularly important the south of the Bemangidy-Ivohibe to share information about the biodiversity offset site. severe negative impacts that the Rio Tinto QMM biodiversity The company’s and conservation offset is having on communities NGO brochures do explain the link at the Bemangidy-Ivohibe offset between restrictions on community site, because this project is being forest use at Bemangidy, the planting presented internationally as the of trees and the biodiversity offset, but model biodiveristy offset in the these links have not been explained to mining sector; the communities affected. What has been explained, however—and also • Sharing information that the imposed—are restrictions on the way companies and their collaborators villagers can now use the forest. implementing the offsets usually fail to disclose to communities. Chapter 2 explains what

8 One of three ferry crossings between Fort Dauphin and biodiversity offsets are, so that the villages of Iabokoho and Antsotso, affected by the communities understand the Rio Tinto QMM Bemangidy biodiversity offset site. process and can challenge those NGOs who believe they do not offset at Bemangidy is pushing have to explain offsetting ‘because families that rely on subsistence what the community needs to farming into hunger and food understand is that it’s about insecurity while one of the world’s conservation and that they need to largest mining corporations stop planting there’. benefits from increased profits from the mining of ilmenite. • Raising awareness internationally about the unbearable situation • Strengthening the voice of those this Rio Tinto QMM biodiversity who call for an end to the fake offset has created for the village solution of offsetting, be it for of Antsotso, in the hope that the biodiversity loss, carbon, forest information provided will help restoration, water pollution, other their efforts to end a situation that industrial pollution, “community jeopardises villagers’ ability to feed development capital” or quota their families. Implementation of for women on the boards of the Rio Tinto QMM biodiversity corporations6.

9 Chapter overview Chapters 3 to 5 provide information about the Bemangidy-Ivohibe “Voices from the villages” are presented biodiversity offset project site and in Chapter 1 of this report. These its role in Rio Tinto’s corporate voices provide a snapshot of villagers’ biodiversity conservation strategy. This experiences at the Bemangidy-Ivohibe is complemented by a short description biodiversity offset site. Local officials of the organisations collaborating and villagers share their perceptions, with Rio Tinto to implement the offset impressions and experiences from activities at the Bemangidy site. encounters with proponents of the offset project. They explain how the In Chapter 6, the authors reflect on project prohibits community members what they learned from conversations from cultivating manioc at the forest in the communities and from edge without providing an alternative meeting with individuals involved in option to growing the staple food that implementing the biodiversity offset at feeds them. the Bemangidy site. Chapter 7 provides a brief summary of these reflections. Neither Rio Tinto QMM nor the organizations collaborating with the company at this particular site seem to have presented the whole story about the project. They have failed to inform the community that the ‘conservation project’ in reality is a biodiversity offset which helped Rio Tinto QMM obtain access to ilmenite deposits beneath a unique and rare littoral forest near the city of Fort Dauphin, some 50 kilomenters – three to six hours drive – to the south of the Bemangidy-Ivohibe biodiversity offset. Chapter 2 gives a brief explanation of what biodiversity offsets are, so communities can challenge those NGOs that arrive to lecture them on how important it is to protect forests “for future generations” or “for biodiversity” but withhold crucial information.

10 1. Voices from the villages: “It’s unfair”

“We understand the importance of their plots every few years as manioc protecting the forest. But they should yields dropped, leaving the land to recover. The local expression for have started the projects to help us recovering fields is ‘hindy’. To take grow food before stopping us from them back into production, villagers using the forest.Otherwise we are left usually burn the vegetation, which with no food and this is a problem.” releases nutrients. No chemical fertiliser is used in these rotation farming systems.

Restrictions imposed with no One of the restrictions the Bemangidy- room for negotiation Ivohibe biodiversity offset now imposes on communities is that villagers are ife for most villagers in the no longer allowed to plant manioc coastal region of southeastern along the forest edge or use the forest LMadagascar is tough. The soils as they did before. The restrictions along the coast are sandy while the were presented in what villagers land at the foot of the hills inland, the referred to as a ‘dina’. A ‘dina’ is part Tsitongambarika forest massif, is steep of the traditional system of regulating and the topsoil is thin. Food production customary land use within and among is thus mostly for subsistence, and it communities. is hard work. The staple food in the villages we visited is manioc. The process of agreeing a ‘dina’ involves a negotiation between those Prior to the arrival of the Rio Tinto using the land, about how a certain area QMM biodivesity offset project at can be used. For this reason, a ‘dina’ Bemangidy-Ivohibe, villagers grew commands a degree of respect that state manioc at the edge of the forest. A regulation generally does not. Until 15m2 patch on the forested hills would recently, a ‘dina’ was not a written provide enough manioc to feed a document—it did not need to be. Those family of five people for about five to whom it applied had been involved days. Farming was mostly in shifting in the negotiation and as part of the cultivation, and families would rotate process, they committed to respecting

11 what had been agreed together. In Manioc fields in the sand dunes. The sand dunes are the the past decade or so, however, state only place left for villagers from Antsotso to plant their staple food manioc. Cultivation at fields traditionally authorities and conservation NGOs used near the forest edge was prohibited when the land have begun to use the term ‘dina’ for was designated part of a protected area and biodiversity documents containing written rules offset for Rio Tinto QMM. imposed on communities as part of conservation projects. process of such management transfers. Direct community input is limited to In conversation, people at the villages refining the rules, the restriction itself is reported that a ‘dina’ had been not negotiable. presented to them around 2003, when the Malagasy government authority The written ‘dina’ applying to the transferred management of the Bemangidy biodiversity offset area northern part of the Tsitongambarika divides the forest into three different forest (TGK III) to local authorities ‘use’ zones. In one zone, any use and the Malagasy conservation NGO is prohibited (except for scientific Asity7. Government and conservation research). In a second zone, restoration organisations use such ‘dinas’ in activities are undertaken and use may connection with the transfer of forest be allowed with restrictions in the management in protected areas to local future. In the third zone, villagers are authorities. Those ‘dinas’ are developed allowed to use plots previously farmed with minimal input from community in shifting cultivation and recuperating organisations that are created in the ‘hindy’ plots. However, use in this

12 zone requires a permit from the local Threat to food security authority that was set up as part of the forest management transfer, the local “We used to cultivate manioc in the forest Communauté de Base (COBA). To before this project came. Now we are not obtain such a permit, villagers usually allowed anymore to plant in the forest have to be COBA members and they and we have to buy our food and this is also usually have to pay a fee. a problem because we don’t have money. Luckily at the moment there are jobs for If people are found farming in the some guys of the village with the road forest without such a permit, or in construction works8, so at least some people zones where use is prohibited, they can work and get some income and have have to pay a fine of between 50,000 money to buy food. We now cannot grow and 1,000,000 Ariary (around 15-300 enough food to feed our families. But we euros). To put this into perspective, don’t kow what we will do when the road more than 75 per cent of Malagasy work is finished. It will be even harder people are living on less than US$ 2 a then!” day and the official minimum wage in Villager at a community meeting in the Madagascar was 125,000.00 Ariary (35 village of Antsotso. euros / month) in 2015.”If you can’t pay the fine, they take you to the Forest This was one of the first descriptions Department and then to jail,” one we heard of the Rio Tinto QMM villager explained. biodiversity offset project at the Bemangidy site. And it was repeated Villagers also mentioned a “dina from in similar form in many of our Asity”. This ‘dina’, villagers explained, conversations with villagers. prohibits use of fire anywhere on the hillside, even for taking ‘hindy’ Asity is a Malagasy nature conservation patches back into cultivation. Shortly NGO and partner of BirdLife after our visit in September 2015, a International. Villagers recalled the villager burned the vegetation on one organisation arriving in communities of his ‘hindy’ patches in preparation around 2011, and informing villagers for planting. Villagers at a meeting that the forest needed to be protected discussing the findings of this report ‘for future generations and for the explained that he is suffering and needs ancestors’ and that they would have to land to cultivate manioc. He was ordered stop planting manioc and other food to pay a fine of 100,000 Ariary for there. burning in an area where the ‘dina’ that regulates forest use in the biodiversity Because they were told they could not offset project area prohibits such use. plant manioc in the hills any more,

13 the community started to search for family of five people for about a week, new areas to cultivate. The only place the same size area in the dunes only available to them was the sand dunes. produces enough to feed five people for The fields are about 3-4 kilometers about one day, villagers explained. And from the villages in the direction while the first crop is ready for harvest of the ocean, and it takes about an some six months after planting, the hour to walk there, passing through tubers are small and of poor quality. wetlands, crossing small lagoons, and going around a big lagoon. Villagers Alternative food production explained that during the rainy season and livelihood alternatives not (from November to April) getting to forthcoming and from the fields is treacherous, particularly when carrying food back to In terms of food security alone, the the villages. Rio Tinto QMM biodiversity offset at Bemangidy is thus turning out to In addition, the productivity of the be a disaster: planting manioc in the sandy soil in the dunes is much lower sand dunes is hard work, far from the than in the forest, and growing manioc villages, on very poor soils not suitable there is not going very well. The new for the manioc varieties available to the manioc fields are not producing enough communities. It leaves villagers without to feed all the families in the villages. their staple food for much of the year Whereas a 15m2 patch on the edge of and families have no regular cash the forest produced enough to feed a income to buy food.

“Asity came around 2011, telling us we could not touch the forest anymore. In 2013 they came to start planting trees. They told us that this project is very important because we need more forest for future generations. They told us that they would provide jobs in exchange, and that this project would

Villagers have to cross this lagoon to get from the village of Antsotso to their manioc fields in the sand dunes, the only place left for manioc cultivation since the Rio Tinto QMMM biodiversity offset project restricts access to the fields traditionally used at the edge of the forest.

14 last for a long time. Then the planting The village of Antsotso, Iabakoho district. Villagers stopped in 2014. Here in the village, only are prohibited from planting manioc at the edge of the forest, which has been dedicated a biodiversity offset around 20 people got work planting trees at site for Rio Tinto QMM. 3,000 Ariary [1 euro] per day, and it was only temporary. They decide day by day. come one day and say “today we need ten Planting trees is good but it does not give us people”. He would bring ten people and they long-term security. And they said that they would tell him that we were 11 (including are thinking to start some social projects to him), so they would say ‘are you going to help us grow food since we cannot use the pay for the 11th?’ Plus, once people had been forest anymore. They were supposed to start taking part in the planting, the next time ,” a villager but they haven’t started yet Asity would come, they tell him to bring explained. this or this person again, and this created a problem for him in the village, because the The process for choosing the people to same few people were working every time. plant the trees was also complicated by Asity doesn’t really want to spend money. the interference of Asity, villagers said: The right thing to do would have been to “ “In total, no more than about 30-40 people involve all the people of the COBA, maybe were involved in the planting, and only from in turns, but they want to save money and time to time. They always came without so they create another problem”. much notice. And then they would go and ask the person in charge of the nursery to In conversation, villagers explained choose the people from the village who would that initially, there had also been talk come along for the planting. They would about planting eucalyptus trees near

15 employment or income-generating opportunities had materialised by the time of our visit. Yet the restrictions on forest use were already in operation. “Asity has forbidden us to use the forest because it will be a protected area. If we use it we have to pay a fine, but how can they talk about money with us? We don’t have any,” one villager explained.

Another added that, “no-one can say Sign posted at the edge of the Bemangidy biodiversity offset site. That indicates: “Native Tree Plantation in that they are getting a salary from Asity. It Ivohibe. Cutting the forest is taboo. Starting fires is is very little work and only temporary. [In taboo. No entry.” addition to the occasional tree planting,] Asity provides 50,000 Ariary [15 euro] to the village, to provide firewood and two people in our village but the 50,000 timber for housing construction. There Ariary is not enough and paying for just two had been some experimental planting, people is also not enough. Our concern is our but this had been abandoned, and no livelihood and two people for 50,000 Ariary further planting of trees had taken is not enough.” place. Villagers said that when they asked when the planting near their Customary rights to forest use not village would start, they were told that respected “it is better to plant native trees for your ancestors, not eucalyptus plantations In 2011, IUCN and Rio Tinto along the road” (see also Chapter 6). published a report called “Exploring But no native trees that could provide ecosystem valuation to move towards wood for local use have been planted net positive impact on biodiversity in along the road either. the mining sector”.9 In the chapter “Distribution of costs and benefits”, Villagers explained that they were the report states: “If local communities under the impression that the project are not compensated for loss of access to would provide employment and the forest and provided with alternative alternative income possibilities for sources of income and forest products, the their communities, to compensate welfare implications of conservation will for the loss of access to land to plant be negative, poverty will be increased and rice, banana and manioc. In the case protection of the forest and its biodiversity of the village of Antsotso that we may be ineffective.” visited, however, no such alternative

16 This recommendation to compensate Asity, together with Rio Tinto, actively local communities for the loss of access pushed for the forest to be declared does not seem to have been followed a protected area before the north- in the case of the protected forest that eastern portion of the forest was also makes up the Bemangidy biodiversity declared a biodiversity offset for Rio offset—and the consequences are Tinto QMM. Did they advocate for fair exactly as so eloquently expressed in compensation when the protected area the IUCN and Rio Tinto report. was decreed?

“We have no benefit from the presence of the “It’s been a long time that the forest is QMM company here, because the mining protected but for us, there is no advantage. is down there and we don’t benefit from The transfer of management for the it. Here we only have a big problem that protected forests was supposed to help us also we cannot plant manioc on the mountain get some money from the forest uses. People anymore. Some people from the village were now have to pay entrance fees, cutting fees if involved in planting the trees, and they were they need some wood for house construction. paid 3,000 Ariary [1 euro] per day. The cost But what are the arrangements now between of buying the manioc we need to feed our QMM, the forest department and Asity? We families for one day is 6,000 Ariary [2 euros] don’t know. What we know is that we have per day, so you see that this is a problem,” a never seen any benefit from the protection. villager explained during a community If there are any, we have not seen them. meeting in Antsotso. Instead, everything is now forbidden,” a villager said. “We made sure everyone got down the mountain” During a visit to a restoration site inside the Bemangidy-Ivohibe biodiversity A representative from Asity explained offset, villagers explained that many why the organisation sees no reason land use issues and the question for such compensation: The forest about customary use rights remained had already been declared a protected unresolved: area by the government before the biodiversity offset started. Customary “It’s true that this land is not titled but rights should have been dealt with there are trees and it’s been used since our when the protected area was set up and, ancestors’ time. So, even if it’s State land, in Asity’s view, no-one should have if it is being used by someone they should had fields or huts in the forest when the have asked permission from that person, and offset project started. they didn’t. We don’t mind planting trees, we have nothing against it and we do think Such an approach is all the more it’s important, but our main concern is our problematic because the same group, livelihood.”

17 At a village meeting, we heard that one and were doing so. But since 2014, not villager has customary rights to the land even the person in charge of the tree where Asity had started the restoration nursery has been paid for the work put planting. He had been using the land into watering the trees. for the cultivation of banana, rice and manioc, and when that was no longer This unpaid time and effort shows that allowed, he planted gmelina seedlings, the community has a strong interest in for future construction or fire wood. the forest restoration work. But the way The trees had already been planted in which the restoration and restriction when Asity and Rio Tinto QMM chose of traditional uses of the forest have the hillside—including his plot with been imposed leaves the community the gmelina seedlings— for restoration in a dreadful situation, as villagers at a planting with native species, as part community meeting attended by some of the biodiverstity offset. Because the 60 adults explained: villager’s use of the land was visible through the planted gmelina seedlings, “We are really suffering now because we he should have received compensation had to stop cultivating there. We moved our for loss of traditional use rights and the cultivation into the dunes, but it’s so sandy NGO or company should have come there that growing anything is difficult. to negotiate with him. “He got not even Plus they took our land and did not even 1 Ariary.” The villagers also explained compensate us. They said they would, but how the person has been reminding they never did. They provided micro-credit Asity staff each time he meets them, projects to maybe 10 people, with 60,000 but that he still has not received any Ariary [18 euros] each, but this is nothing to compensation and cannot use the trees make a sustainable project.” he planted in what has since become the Rio Tinto QMM Bemangidy “We think that protecting the forest is biodiversity offset site. really good, but they should have worried first about our survival, they should have In addition to failing to compensate for taught us how to cultivate somewhere else. customary use of the land, the project Since Asity came here, our life has become is also relying on unpaid work from much worse than before. Our standard of villagers. One of the surprising sights living is decreasing ever more. It’s true that at the restoration site we visited was we should think about the future. But how the high number of seedlings that were can we think about the future if we have growing well. In conversation with nothing to eat today? If we cannot even feed villagers, we found out why so many ourselves? We know that it’s necessary to seedlings were surviving: People had protect the forest because we’ve got nothing been asked to water the trees regularly but the forest. And they took that from us.”

18 2. What are biodiversity offsets?

“Offset means compensation. no biodiversity is lost (that there is The basic principle behind it is that ‘zero net loss’). What is destroyed in one place is restored or conserved a mining company that destroys in another location. But not just in 4000 ha of forest for its mining any other location. For the project to activities will have to protect 4000 function as a biodiversity ‘offset’, the ha elsewhere, and the forest for the biodiversity at the offset location must compensation should be as similar as be shown to have been at risk of being lost without the intervention of the possible regarding endemic species as ‘offset’ project. However, this is only 10 the forest destroyed” one explanation of what biodiversity ‘offsets’ are.

Biodiversity offsets – some basics Another explanation is that biodiversity ‘offsets’ are part of a trend towards orporations involved in business-oriented conservation policies extractive industries, industrial leading to significant changes in the Cagriculture and construction of way environmental policies and laws large-scale infrastructure, the World are designed. These changes make it Bank, international conservation NGOs easier for companies to continue to and a growing number of governments pollute or destroy biodiversity, because are increasingly employing a strategy they can supposedly ‘make up for it’ known as ‘biodiversity offsetting’. elsewhere. They claim that this will help protect biological diversity because for This prospect to continue business- every hectare of forest, grassland or as-usual while claiming that no wetland that is destroyed through their damage is done because destruction operations, another hectare of forest or of biodiversity in one place will be grassland or wetland will be protected compensated by restoring a location or restored elsewhere. elsewhere has made the idea of ‘offsetting’ very popular with mining The result, proponents of biodiversity companies. It helps them to get mining offsetting claim, is that on balance, permits that governments might

19 Offsetting and climate change

he idea of additional permissions to legal limit - has been ‘offsetting’ or release greenhouse gases ‘offset’ or compensated compensating into the atmosphere from by some ‘offset’ project T other companies that have saving a tonne of carbon for damage done polluted less than their dioxide that without the elsewhere achieved permitted limit. In some ‘offset’ project would have international cases, a company that been released into the recognition when wants to pollute more atmosphere. carbon offsetting than its quota can also This is the basic idea became part of the buy carbon credits from behind offsetting. Kyoto Protocol, a projects that claim to However, there are have prevented the release many problems with this United Nations treaty of carbon dioxide into concept. that limits the release the atmosphere. These of greenhouse gases projects are called ‘offset’ For example, the owners in industrialized projects. For each tonne of a carbon ‘offset’ countries. of carbon dioxide that project need to prove has been saved through that the carbon dioxide the ‘offset’ project, the would have been released Giving companies project owner receives a into the atmosphere operating in a country ‘carbon credit’. The owner if they had not taken where greenhouse gas of the ‘offset’ project can action. In the technical emissions are limited the sell the carbon credit to discussions about possibility to ‘offset’ or a company that wants ‘offsetting’, this is called compensate emissions to release more than its ‘additionality’ of the means providing an legal quota of greenhouse emission reduction. The opportunity for these gases. The buyer of problem is that proving companies to legally the credit is allowed to such ‘additionality’ is a release more carbon release the extra tonne hypothetical excericse. It dioxide than the limit of carbon dioxide and involves describing what would otherwise allow pretend releasing more would have happened in a – and still claim to have carbon dioxide than future without the ‘offset’ stayed within the legal the limit allows has no project. But the ‘offset’ limit. negative impact on the project did happen, so climate. They can make the future without the Essentially, companies this claim because the ‘offset’ is hypothetical, that have used up all their extra company emission and therefore very easy to pollution quota can buy - although above the manipulate.

20 And because the volume sold by the project.11 This assurance that something of ‘offset’ credits that has been shown to create has not happened – that a a project can sell is a perverse incentive for tonne of carbon dioxide calculated by comparing project owners to claim has not been released the actual greenhouse gas that emissions would have into the atmosphere: no emissions of the ‘offset’ been particularly high in actual physical product project with those that the hypothetical future. has ever to be delivered. would have been released The ‘product’ being had the ‘offset’ project The ‘product’ that is marketed is the absence of not happened, the higher traded in a carbon market an emission. This makes the emissions in the is also very different from the carbon market a prime hypothetical calculation, products sold in other target for fraudsters12. the more savings can be markets. Trading offset shown in the actual ‘offset’ credits means trading an project – and thus, the electronic tracking number more carbon credits can be linked to an auditor’s

Hey, amigo, we need that tree to protect us from climate change.

21 otherwise find difficult to grant — same time, offsets allow them to grant because the mining is going to destroy, companies the right to ignore those say, a rare forest or grassland or same limits anywhere they want to wetland, maybe in a protected area. Or mine or otherwise destroy and pollute, the land might be part of an indigenous even if this goes beyond the limit set by peoples’ territory or it might be used law. The only thing the companies need by traditional communities who risk to do is acquire a biodiversity (or forest losing the land they depend on. If the restoration or clean water or carbon) company can argue that the biodiversity offset credit that shows they have paid they will destroy in this particular for a forest or wetland or grassland place will be restored and protected to be restored or protected elsewhere. elsewhere, it is much easier for them to Currently, over 25 countries are said to convince the government and/or public have or be in the process of elaborating that they should be allowed to proceed. legislation that includes offsets of one form or another.14 Biodiversity offset plans are also increasingly required to get planning Falsely blaming communities for permission and loans. For example, if biodiversity loss a company applies for a loan from the World Bank’s International Finance For a biodiversity offset project to Corporation (IFC), for mining in proceed, the project owner has to a location that the IFC considers demonstrate how the project will important for biodiversity, it has to protect or improve biodiversity that present a biodiversity offset plan. This otherwise would have been at risk plan has to show how the company will of being destroyed. What will the compensate for the biodiversity that biodiversity offset project do so that will be lost, before the mining project the eventual outcome for biodiversity can qualify for the loan.13 will be better than it would have been without the project? For example, will For governments, the appeal is also it stop a forest from being felled? Will it obvious. In the short-term, biodiversity restore so-called ‘degraded forest’ that offsets offer a way out of a dilemma would otherwise have been neglected? they face. Offsets—which are being proposed as compensation for the To qualify as an ‘offset’ project, it loss of carbon and clean water as is crucial for the project owner to well as biodiversity or forests —allow demonstrate that without the project governments to be seen to be putting activity, biodiversity would have been at a limit on pollution or destruction risk of being destroyed. It is this claim in reponse to public demand. At the that the project ‘saves’ biodiversity

22 Do NOT No ENTER! No No fishing Hunting Agriculture Protected allowed forest

which otherwise would have been lost local use, or how they will restore land that generates the biodiversity credit. that was ‘degraded’ through local use. This claim in turn allows a mining company buying the offset credit to This blame-the-community approach is destroy biodiversity elsewhere – and say not just incidental: it is a fundamental that on balance, no biodiversity has been part of a biodiversity offset project. lost. After all, if the forest would have been conserved without additional action, In this story of what would have there is no basis for the project to happened without the ‘offset’ project, claim that it is saving biodiversity that communities’ land use practises are was at risk of being destroyed. That almost always unfairly blamed. Usually, is why offset projects almost always the biodiversity (or carbon) offset story say that local villagers would have goes something like this: ‘Tavy or destroyed the forest and that the offset shifting cultivation practises or cutting project will prevent this destruction. of trees by local communities would The offset project then calculates how have destroyed this forest during the much biodiversity has been saved and next x years, but the offset project can auditing companies verify that, based save it.’ Then the owners of the offset on the information provided, the project will explain, in reports prepared project has saved x hectares of habitat as part of the offset project, how they important for biodiversity (or carbon will stop tavy or traditional agricultural or clean water or restored forest). practises or the extraction of wood for They then issue ‘offset credits’ that the

23 project owner can sell, e.g. to mining I see a very companies. The mining companies can profitable future then use the biodiversity offset credit as for your forest! ? proof of compensation for biodiversity destroyed at a mining site. without offset project

with offset project Most offset projecs therefore actually Biodiversity loss change – and usually, restrict - local access and use of the land. They have to, because they have to show that there are changes to the way the land is being used, and that these have only come about because of the offset project. In most cases these changes translate into access restrictions for As this short exploration of the basics local communities while large-scale of offsetting shows, biodiversity destruction by corporate activities offsets are being used to condone the continues unhindered. continued, large-scale destruction caused by mining and other large- A number of offset projects that scale industrial activities that destroy generate ‘forest carbon’ or “REDD”15 biodiversity. Biodiversity offsets are credits have already been shown to also almost always a double landgrab have evicted local populations or because a corporation will take away restrict forests access for peasants or land from communities not only for the indigenous peoples.16 mine or the plantation or infrastructure development, but also for the area they It’s also worth remembering that a plan to use for the biodiversity offset company does not buy the biodiversity project. (or clean water or carbon or a restored forest) itself, it only buys a paper or electronic tracking number that qualifies as a placeholder for the biodiversity (or carbon or clean water or restored forest) saved at the ‘offset site’. The company then shows this tracking number to the government authorities or financing agencies like the World Bank’s IFC as proof that it has compensated for biodiversity destruction.

24 3. The Rio Tinto QMM biodiversity offset project

io Tinto is a British- org/rio-tinto/). Their corporate sales Australian mining were thus almost six times the GDP of Madagascar that year. corporation with R Like other mining companies, Rio . headquarters in London, UK Tinto is showing great interest in biodiversity offsets, for the reasons It is involved in the mining of iron explained above. In 2004, at the Third ore, copper, bauxite, uranium, coal, IUCN World Conservation Congress and diamonds on six continents, and in Bangkok, the Rio Tinto Group conflicts associated with Rio Tinto launched its biodiversity conservation mining operations are many. For strategy, committing to achieve a example, the Bingham Canyon mine in ‘Net Positive Impact’ on biodiversity Utah, USA, is the single largest open through its operations worldwide.18 pit mining operation and the deepest excavation of its kind in the world. Rio Tinto QMM’s ilmenite mine Worldwide, no other mining operation this large is so close to a population of at Fort Dauphin, Madagascar 1.8 million people. At its Eagle Mine site in Michigan, USA, Rio Tinto is In southeastern Madagascar, Rio Tinto accused of violating Indigenous treaty is involved in the mining of ilmenite. rights, and mining has raised concerns The ilmenite mine in Fort Dauphin about local water quality, the potential is operated by Rio Tinto QMM (QIT for irreversible acid mine drainage, Madagascar Minerals). The Malagasy ecosystem degradation and the government holds 20 per cent of the technical risk of mine collapse.17 company, and Rio Tinto the remaining 80 per cent. Rio Tinto Group owns gross assets valued at USD 81 billion through a Rio Tinto began exploration for complex web of subsidiaries, and had ilmenite mining in southeastern reported net earnings of USD 3.7 billion Madagascar in the 1980s. QMM was on sales of USD 54.6 billion in 2013 legally established in 2005, when (Source: http://londonminingnetwork. the Malagasy government agreed

25 Rio Tinto and biodiversity offsets: initiatives at a glance

io Tinto announced its The Environmental Impact biodiversity conservation Assessement (EIA) and related Rstrategy at the Third IUCN biodiversity management plan, World Conservation Congress in which was developed with guidance Bangkok, in 2004. from The Biodiversity Consultancy, The strategy includes the use of Cambridge, refers to a biodiversity biodiversity offsets to compensate offset. The EIA was approved in for ecological impacts from mining 2013 by the Mongolian environment at numerous Rio Tinto mining sites. ministry, following modification Brochures by Rio Tinto and its partners of environmental legislation, on cite pilot biodiversity offset initiatives at the advice of the World Bank. One the mining company’s Simandou mine crucial aspect of the modification in Guinea, Oyu Tolgoi in Mongolia, was the introduction of biodiversity QMM in Madagascar, Rössing in offsetting. Project sponsors developed Namibia, Palabora in South Africa, a biodiversity offset plan that includes and operations in Australia. For their two specific measures: a monitoring preparation and implementation, plan concerning a number of endagered Rio Tinto is engaging a wide range species in the project area—namely of partner organisations and experts Khulan, black tail gazzella, and a few from the consultancy, biodiversity bird species—and an anti-poaching conservation and social development plan. sectors. Apart from the offset initiatives at the Oyu Tolgoi and Fort Dauphin An international civil society field mines, no information is available investigation in April 2015 found regarding the actual status of the that the actual biodiversity offset biodiversity offset initiatives. project is still under preparation and far from being operational. Rio Tinto in Mongolia Production at the mine is already underway, however, having started The Oyu Tolgoi open pit and in January 2013. Furthermore, the underground copper mining project offset project will not alleviate the is the largest mining investment ever impact on pastoralist communities of licensed in Mongolia. 66 per cent of the mine using enormous quantities the mining joint venture set up to run of water in a desert region, or social Oyu Tolgoi is controlled by Rio Tinto. impacts caused by the mine, even if it Project costs are about USD 10 billion eventually becomes operational. The and the mine is expected to account for company has failed to demonstrate about 30 per cent of Mongolia’s GDP. how it will prevent the excessive use

26 of water for production at the mine Impact policies. Many in the mining and infrastructure related to the and conservation sector consider project from jeopardizing pastoralist the Simandou Project’s Social and communities’ access to water. Environmental Impact Assessment as an example of best-practice without Rio Tinto in Guinea providing information regarding the actual status of any concrete offset The Rio Tinto Iron Ore Simandou activites. mine is located in the Republic of Guinea. The project includes the mine Rio Tinto in Namibia itself, the new Trans-Guinean railway and a deep-sea port at Moribaya. The Rössing Uranium Mine is one The deep-sea port will be the first of the largest and longest-running in Guinea to provide access to large open pit uranium mines in the world. cargo ships able to transport the iron It is located in the Namib Desert, 65 ore. Current partners in the mine’s kilometres from Swakopmund near the operating company, Simfer S.A., are town of Arandis. Discovered in 1928, it the Government of Guinea (7.5%), started operations in 1976 as Namibia’s Rio Tinto (46.57%), Aluminium first uranium mine and in 2014, Corporation of China (Chinalco, produced 1,543 tonnes of uranium 41.3%) and the International Finance oxide, providing 2.3 per cent of the Corporation (IFC, 4.625%), with Rio world’s uranium. Tinto leading the project. In Namibia, Rio Tinto is working Rio Tinto mentions collaborating with in partnership with Fauna & Flora Fauna & Flora International (FFI) International (FFI) and its geographic in Guinea to develop site-specific information system (GIS) experts recommendations to avoid, minimise, who are investigating possibilities for rehabilitate and offset environmental “offsetting environmental damage” impacts at Simandou but does not and for carrying out “biodiversity mention specifics about the status of action plans”. As with the plans cited offset project implementation.19 In for the mine at Simandou, brochures 2009, during the pre-feasibility stage citing Rio Tinto’s engagement with of the mining project, The Biodiversity biodiversity offsetting provide no Consultancy, Cambridge, identified a further information about the status high biodiversity risk when assessing of implementation of the biodiversity the mine’s impact on ‘critical habitat’. offset plans alluded to for the Rössing The Simandou Project’s Social and mine. Environmental Impact Assessment highlights Rio Tinto’s own Biodiversity Conservation Strategy and Net Positive

2727 to contribute USD 35 million to the A further reason included the risks development of infrastructure for the and opportunities that conservation ilmenite mine operation. This funding NGOs had identified with respect to came from a World Bank ‘Integrated biodiversity. Rio Tinto could expect Growth Poles Project for Madagascar’ to benefit from presenting respected aimed at strengthening finance, export conservation groups as partners in its capacity and private sector development efforts to counter the active campaign in the country.20 by NGOs such as Friends of the Earth and Panos against the ilmenite mine at The mining concession covers some Fort Dauphin.22 6,000 hectares. Ilmenite deposits will be mined at three locations—Mandena, By selecting this site, Rio Tinto could Sainte Luce and Petriky—within be assured of considerable public the larger concession area. At peak attention for its seemingly ‘green’ capacity, its owners say, the mine response to the NGOs’ campaign. could produce up to 2 million tonnes of ilmenite ore a year, worth roughly Rio Tinto also highlights the company’s USD 100 a tonne in year. The ore is involvement in advocating for a forest being processed in Canada, and sold for complex nearby becoming protected some USD 2,000 a tonne as titanium by State Decree. It is rare for a mining dioxide, a pigment used in white paint, company to present itself as such a tennis court lines, sunscreen, and champion for protected areas. In this toothpaste among others. At 2009 levels case, however, doing so allows the of demand, the Fort Dauphin mine will company to claim that without its provide 9 per cent of the world supply intervention, the forest would not have over the next 40 years21. been protected. Then, when part of the area was proposed as a biodiversity Rio Tinto QMM’s biodiversity offset site for the QMM ilmenite mine, offset project Rio Tinto could claim that without the company’s intervention in favour of Rio Tinto chose the ilmenite mine in designation of the forest as a protected Fort Dauphin as a pilot site for its ‘Net area, biodiversity at what was to Positive Impact’ strategy. One reason become the Bemangidy biodiversity for choosing a site in Madagascar was offset site would have been destroyed! because there are many ‘endemic’ species (species which are found Since its arrival in Madagascar, Rio nowhere else in the world). This makes Tinto had also been preparing the Madagascar a biodiversity ‘hotspot’ of ground for diverting attention away great interest internationally. from its role in the destruction of

28 unique coastal forest. In one document, for example, Rio Tinto insists that, “deforestation, for slash-and-burn farming or ‘tavy’ and making charcoal, is the biggest factor in massive destruction of natural habitats.”23 Descriptions such as these presented the local population’s land use as the main threat to the survival of the rare littoral forest located inside the Rio Tinto QMM ilmenite mining concession.

“Madagascar is among the richest countries in the world in terms of biodiversity, where poverty, however, leaves no alternative for communities than turning to natural resources to survive. This high pressure causes massive destruction of natural habitats and includes Madagascar in the red zone (hotspot) for risk on biodiversity”, Rio Tinto write in another brochure.24

This is a tactic that has been described Map of the implementation sites of Rio Tinto in academic literature: diverting Biodiversity Action Plan in Madagascar. attention from a corporation’s own environmental destructiveness and focusing instead on local Rio Tinto QMM is arguing that local communities—who have been relying communities were going to destroy on the forest for decades—as the the forest at the mining site by 2040, ecologically destructive ‘Other’.25 and that the company’s actions will now save it through its biodiversity It is also why local communities at conservation and restoration activities a biodiversity offset site 50 km away inside the mining concession. In from the mine are being prevented from addition, Rio Tinto QMM will engage using the forests. These restrictions in biodiversity offset measures outside are not incidental to the offset project, its mining concession, protecting and or a small part of it. Rather, they are restoring forest the company claims at the heart of the logic underpinning would also have been destroyed by local the concept of a biodiversity offset. community use without the company’s

29 Rio Tinto QMM’s biodiversity offset: terminology

his box provides an overview The implementation of the biodiversity of the language used by offset projects has been outsourced to Rio Tinto to describe different conservation NGOs, including T Asity (Bemangidy) and Missouri the different components of its Botanical Gardens (Mahabo). biodiversity conservation strategy, and of organisations involved in On-site conservation measures: the biodiversity offset project(s). • “Avoidance” means that some of Internationally, Rio Tinto presents its the littoral forest fragments inside “Net Positive Impact” (NPI) strategy the mining concession will not be as an integrated system that has several destroyed by dredging. However, action categories: these are likely to be mainly areas where the ilmenite deposit is small “At Rio Tinto we believe that to obtain a or hard to get at. According to Rio Net Positive Impact we must reduce our Tinto QMM brochures, avoidance impact on biodiversity, through Avoidance, zones at the three locations Minimization, Rehabilitation, Offset where ilmenite will be extracted and Additional Conservation Actions. (Mandena, Petriky and Sainte We describe collectively this set of actions Luce) add up to 624 hectares. as “hierarchy of mitigation”. We put the maximum possible effort to obtain a • According to Rio Tinto, NPI applying biodiversity offsetting and “‘minimization’ reduces the additional conservation measures.”26 severity of impacts on biodiversity that results from mining (...) The strategy refers to “on-site already under way. These actions measures” – these are activities reduce the likelihood or magnitude that take place inside the Rio Tinto of biodiversity impacts, but cannot QMM mining concession, and that completely prevent them (...).” are managed by Rio Tinto QMM. Examples of such measures are The term “off-site” is used for sensitising and educating truck activities that are undertaken outside drivers so that they comply with the mining concession area. This speed limits to reduce accidents. includes biodiversity offsets at three different sites, but also corporate social • Rio Tinto material describes responsibility activities in villages in the “rehabilitation” as involving the area around the mine. The latter are not preparation of safe and stable considered in this report. landforms on sites that have been disturbed by the mining

30 activities, followed by re-vegetation Aerial view of the Rio Tinto QMM ilmenite mine at (...). “Restoration“ is the term Fort Dauphin, south-eastern Madagascar. used when the original habitat type is recreated. In practice, or outcomes can be difficult to rehabilitation consists of planting quantify. (...) for example: helping exotic species (mainly eucalyptus, to build capacity in conservation acacia, casuaria and gmelina) on organisations to enable better the areas that have been dredged biodiversity conservation outcomes and where the rare coastal forest on projects they are involved with. has been destroyed to extract (...)” ilmenite; the argument for using exotic species is to reduce the risk • The most prominent “off-site” of erosion by establishing ground measure is biodiversity offsetting. cover more quickly. Native species Rio Tinto writes that, “ biodiversity will be used to restore supposedly offsets are conservation actions degraded areas of forest inside the designed to compensate for concession, in those parts that will the unavoidable impacts on not be mined. Some 44 different biodiversity caused by mining local native species are being and refining. Offsets should never planted, with seeds collected from be employed in the place of the topsoil that has been dredged. appropriate on-site avoidance and minimisation measures, but rather Off-site measures: seek to address any residual gap.” Forests at three locations provide • “Additional conservation actions” biodiversity offsets for the Fort include a “broad range of activities Dauphin ilmenite mine. These that are intended to benefit are the Bemandigy, Mahabo and biodiversity, where the effects Sainte Luce biodiversity offset sites.

31 offset project. The sum of these as well as allowing it access to 40 years conservation activities, Rio Tinto and worth of ilmenite deposits that provide partners claim, will result in an overall the key ingredient for industrial white “net positive impact” on biodiversity. paint.

Thus the company makes the leap to Obtaining a complete and precise proposing that the mining project in understanding of the Rio Tinto QMM Fort Dauphin will protect Madagascar’s biodiversity offset activities (size, biodiversity, so it should be welcomed localisation, quantification etc..) was with open arms. A 2009 Rio Tinto not an easy task, and uncertainties QMM press kit audaciously claims remain. We found a general reluctance that its operation is “a mine at the rescue on the part of Rio Tinto staff to share of the unique biodiversity of the littoral details about the biodiversity offset zone of Fort Dauphin”!27 The fact that projects linked with QMM mining some 1,650 hectares—6.5% of this operations. unique coastal forest in Madagascar— is located within the boundaries of Furthermore, information from the mining concession that QMM different company reports and a visit is exploiting for ilmenite, is actually at the Rio Tinto QMM Mandena presented by the company’s literature Ecological Research Centre and forest as a blessing. conservation site proved contradictory. It appears, however, that at present, Conservation NGOs working with Rio there are three biodiversity offset sites: Tinto on the biodiversity offset projects Mahabo (1200 ha), Sainte Luce (475 for the ilmenite mine have accepted this ha), and Bemangidy (size not clear, argument. Forests at three biodiversity see below). These three sites are said offset sites, Bemandigy, Mahabo and to provide a total of 6,000 hectares for Sainte Luce, now serve as biodiversity biodiversity offsetting, which should offset for Rio Tinto QMM, allowing be about the same size as the mining the company to proceed with the concession. destruction of rare coastal forests with endemic species at its 6,000-hectare The offset sites at Sainte Luce and ilmenite mining concession at Fort Mahabo are considered ‘like-for-like’ Dauphin - and still say that its mining offsets because both sites are located in will have a “Net Positive Impact” on the same forest type as the forest that is biodiversity. being destroyed at the mining site: it’s a littoral forest unique to Madagascar. This approach is generating excellent Most remaining forest of this type has public relations benefits for Rio Tinto, been fragmented or degraded.

32 Forest restoration site at the edge of the forest which is part of the Rio Tinto Bemangidy biodiversity offset and Tsitongambarika protected area.

divided into four locations. There is no village inside the offset locations at Sainte Luce but several villages are located very close by, including the villages of Mahatalaki and Sainte Luce. Villagers from both of these communities use forests at at least one of the four Sainte Luce • Mahabo is located about 201 km biodiversity offset locations. north of Fort Dauphin. The site was titled as a Protected Area in • Bemangidy (also called 2014. The 1,200 hectare site is Bemangidy-Ivohibe) is the third managed by Missouri Botanical biodiversity offset site and it is the Gardens, in coordination with the subject of this report. WRM and local NGO Soazagnahary, the local Re:Common decided to make this Fokontany and Mahabo-Mananivo site the focus of the September municipality. Anecdotal reports 2015 field investigation because suggest that the offset project is of the scarcity of information experiencing financial difficulties, about it. The Bemangidy offset with Rio Tinto QMM said to site is located about 50 km north have cut their contribution since of Fort Dauphin, along the 2013/2014. national route. Several Rio Tinto documents forecasting “Net • Sainte Luce is located about 30 km Positive Impact” describe the north of Fort Dauphin, to the east Bemangidy offset location as a of the village of Mahatalaki, at the “back-up”, in case offset activities northern edge of the QMM mining prove not to be effective at other concession. Confusingly, there sites.28 When a conservation zone are both on-site avoidance zones in Ambatotsirongorongo, co- (inside the mining concession) managed by Wildlife Conservation and biodiversity offset activities at Society, was taken off the initial list Ste Luce. According to Rio Tinto, of possible biodiversity offset sites, the total size of the Sainte Luce the Bemangidy offset site became biodiversity offset site (outside the an integral part of the Rio Tinto mining concession) is 475 hectares, biodiversity offset strategy.29

33 4. The Bemangidy biodiversity offset site

emangidy is actually The Tsitongambarika Forest is a the name of a tiny Protected Area of about 60,000 ha which was granted permanent Bvillage located about 50 protection status in June 2015.31 The km north of Fort Dauphin, protected area was initially created reachable in a three to six in 2008 by the Malagasy Ministry of 30 Water and Forests, with technical and hour drive on the national financial support in the preparatory route towards Farafangana. phase from BirdLife International and its Malagasy affiliate Asity Madagascar, The official name of the Rio Tinto Rio Tinto, USAID, and Conservation QMM biodiversity offset project in the International.32 A BirdLife brochure Bemangidy area is ‘Ampasy Vohibe’, on conservation payment initiatives in or ‘Bemangidy-Ivohive’. The site is Madagascar notes that, “in particular, located in the northeastern portion of the forest protects the catchments of the the Tsitongambarika Forest Complex main water sources for Fort Dauphin town (TGK). However, people still refer to (the main settlement in the region), and the the forest (and thus, to the offset site) QMM ilmenite mining operation, located just as Bemangidy, the name of the in the coastal plain below Tsitongambarika village and surrounding forest. Until forest.”33 some 20 years ago, this was the site of a timber processing plant owned by Documents about the related a Swiss company. According to local biodiversity offset project contain information, the company highgraded imprecise and even contradictory the forest, exhausting many of the information about Rio Tinto QMM’s valuable timber species – a fact that contribution to conservation of is absent from company and NGO the TGK forest complex, often brochures on the land use of the area. overestimating the conservation area These brochures, instead, focus on that is directly related to Rio Tinto presenting local land use for subsistence QMM activities and being financially food production as the sole driver of supported by Rio Tinto. deforestation and forest degradation.

34 440000,000000 450000,000000 460000,000000 470000,000000 480000,000000 490000,000000 Tsitongambarika biodiversity offset site. CARTE OFFSET TSITONGAMBARIKA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , , Map courtesy of Asity Madagascar. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 1 1

Tavy Berthol 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , , 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8 Tanitsara 8

1 ! 1 State Decree? We asked staff at the Rio

AMPASY IVOHIBE! ! Tinto Mandena Ecological Research !

0 ! 0

0 Restauration Ivohibe 0 0 0 0 0

0 ! 0 0 0 , ,

0 ! 0

0 ! 0

0 !Antanamb!azaha !Antsotso 0

0 0 Centre in Fort Dauphin and at Asity, Andrazato 7 ! ! ! 7 1 Iaboakoho 1 !! ! !Ianakogny but we could not get a clear answer. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , , 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 1 1 That the Bemangidy site is not a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

, , ‘like-for-like’ offset is also important 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 1 1 because not all species and habitat that 0 0 0 0

0 0 will be destroyed at the mining site 0 0 0 0 0 0 , , 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 1 1 are also found at this offset site. The forests at Tsitongambarika are lowland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , , 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 3 inland rainforest, whereas the Rio 1 1 Tinto QMM mine in Fort Dauphin is 0 0

0 TOLAGNARO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , , 0 0 0 0

0 0 destroying coastal forest. 0 0 2 2 1 1 440000,000000 450000,000000 460000,000000 470000,000000 480000,000000 490000,000000 The company has tapped into the For example, conservation maps and knowledge acquired by universities and documents divide the Tsitongambarika botanical collections that did extensive Forest Complex into three areas (TGK surveys in the TGK complex during past 1 – 15,000 ha, TGK 2 – 25,000 ha, decades to identify a site with largest TGK 3 – 25,000 ha). In Rio Tinto’s possible overlap of flora and fauna to literature, the entire 60,000 ha New the littoral forest at the mining site. Protected Area is often presented as if it was part of the Rio Tinto QMM Asity staff confirmed that several conservation efforts; and in some cases biological inventories have been it is stated that the offset project refers conducted, and it has been established to 30,000 ha in TGK 3 (although this that there is an overlap between the two is more than the actual size of TGK sites in terms of species composition. 3). On the other hand, in documents But even so, several species that are by BirdLife International and other threatened by the ilmenite mine are not NGOs, the size of the Rio Tinto QMM found at the “out-of-kind” offset site offset site is given as about 1,000 ha, at Bemangidy. Surprisingly, Rio Tinto and sometimes as 10,000 ha.34 defends this use of “out-of-kind” offset with the claim that “it is becoming The fact that the area is already recognised that “out-of-kind”offsets protected by a State Decree raises may result in greater conservation an important question: How can an benefits.”35 No information is provided area be used as an offset for a private about who actually endorses such company if it is already protected by a claims or why this practise would

35 “result in greater conservation The biodiversity offset also involves the benefits”. restoration of degraded forest. At the Bemangidy site about 2,050 seedlings The Bemangidy offset site is located of native trees species were planted in inside the larger conservation area one location in 2013; and another 2,000 that includes the entire forest of in another location, near the edge of Tsitongambarika. This larger protected the forest, in 2014. At the time of our area is jointly managed by Asity and visit in September 2015, no planting KOMFITA, the “Comité de gestion de had been done for 2015. At the village l’aire protégée de Tsitongambarika”. of Antsotso, tree planting, some small The entire TGK Protected Area micro-credits and regular payment for includes more than 60 Communautés two people has been the only economic de Base (COBA), with the following support the village has received since four COBAs also involved in the losing access to their fields at the Bemangidy-Ivohibe biodiversity offset: edge of the forest as a result of the Ianakogny, Iabakoho, Antsotso, and biodiversity offset project. Tanitsara. At the beginning, people were receiving A Communauté de Base is a local 2,000 Ariary [less than 1 euro] per day administrative entity. Such COBAs to plant five seedlings a day per person. have been set up across Madagascar in After strong protests due to the low pay, areas where management for protected the daily rate was increased to 3,000 areas has been transferred to the local Ariary [1 euro], for the planting of the level (see Chapter 1). Various official seedlings (by the men). Preparation of and conservation NGO publications the roofs to provide shade for the newly describe a COBA as a group of planted seedlings was mainly done by volunteers united by setting up of a women. COBA. In conversations, people mentioned According to Asity, each COBA that that at the Iabokoho site, some 10 is part of the biodiversity offset project kilometers away from the villages we is provided with an annual budget visited, experimental trials for rice specifically related to the biodiversity cultivation and tree plantations had offset. The main objective of the been started. However, it was reported offset project is given as ‘biodiversity that no such activities had been conservation’, but it does include offered to the villagers at Antsotso and community development as an neighbouring villages that are affected additional objective. by the Bemangidy offset site.

36 5. Conservation groups linked to the Bemangidy biodiversity offset

ny transnational conservation groups, BirdLife mining company International, established a partnership at the global level. Through this Aseeking to continue partnership, BirdLife started assisting destructive mining operations Rio Tinto in the development and in unique coastal forest in a implementation of its biodiversity conservation strategy and its goal of country with many species having a “Net Positive Impact” on found nowhere else on the biodiversity at selected mining sites. Rio planet is going to find it Tinto launched the strategy in 2004, and chose the QMM ilmenite project as difficult to convince others “a pilot site for testing NPI tools.”37,38 that it will really conserve biodiversity. Rio Tinto QMM also set up a high- profile Biodiversity Committee39 in Proposing to implement a biodiversity 2003, to advise on how best to conserve offset plan in such a context certainly and enhance biodiversity within the helps a company to earn green ilmenite mining and biodiversity offset credentials even though its mining areas, before, during and after mining. will continue to destroy biodiversity. The Committee includes technical But such engagement alone is advisors from academia and research unlikely to be convincing without organisation, as well as from strategic external validation. In the case of the partners, mostly large conservation Bemangidy biodiversity offset project organisations. this external validation comes in the form of partnerships with two leading In addition, Rio Tinto began to international conservation NGOs collaborate with the International and the setting up of a Biodiversity Union for Conservation of Nature Committee.36 (IUCN) in 2010. Because IUCN— which brings together conservation In 2001, Rio Tinto and one of the NGOs and governments—is perceived world’s most well-known nature as a leading authority in the field

37 of environment and sustainable Manioca fields on the sand dunes near Bemangidy. development, this advanced Rio Tinto’s While a 15 m2 on the edge of the forest produced enough to feed a family of 5 for a week, the same area goal of presenting itself as a champion in the dunes produces enough only for one day. of biodiversity conservation,40 especially in the mining sector. to conduct a series of biodiversity surveys. These were coordinated by Designing the “Net Positive Impact” BirdLife International, and funded in strategy for the Rio Tinto QMM part through the BirdLife partnership ilmenite mine also required access to with Rio Tinto. Botanical inventory in-depth research to obtain crucial activities were also carried out in biological and socio-economic technical collaboration with MBG, Rio information about potential offset Tinto QMM and BirdLife International, sites within the Anosy region of with an inventory prepared using the Madagascar. Such detailed inventory standard protocol for botanical sampling information is necessary to compare developed and adopted by MBG.41 the biodiversity found around the mine It seems that institutions like MBG and the biodiversity at potential offset are looking to biodiversitiy offsetting sites. Is it the same or not? as a possibility to generate a revenue stream from their immense botanical A well-equipped team of Malagasy and collections and species databases. international scientists from Missouri Re-using their existing collections, Botanical Garden (MBG), Rio Tinto they lend scientific credibility to the QMM, and the Malagasy NGOs biodiversity offset approach. MBG is Asity Madagascar and Madagasikara a leading botanical scientic authority Voakajy, among others, had been and its ‘stamp of approval’ is just as visiting the ‘Tsitongambarika Forest important as its specialised inventories, Complex’ (see Chapter 4) extensively legitimising Rio Tinto’s biodiversity

38 conservation measures, and ultimately, work for people in the villages”. As the ilmenite mine.42 noted in Chapter 2, for villages affected by the Bemangidy-Ivohibe offset site Based on these extensive inventories, this meant occasional tree planting the Tsitongambarika forest was work in 2013 and 2014 and some identified as a perfect biodiversity offset 50,000 Ariary [15 euros] a month to spot for the ilmenite mine because of two people in the villages on a more its high biodiversity value and because regular basis. it provides ‘ecosystem goods and services’ (eg water regulation) for the In its observations and technical surrounding population. recommendations 2014, the Rio Tinto QMM Biodiversity Committee “suggests Current management of the that QMM seeks assurances that Asity Bemangidy-Ivohibe biodiversity proposes to spend a sufficient proportion offset is the responsiblity of the NGO of their budget for on-site activities at Asity, which became the Malagasy Bemangidy, and requests that arrangements affiliate of BirdLife International in be made for Asity to give a presentation 2008, when the Malagasy program of on their work plan, activities and progress BirdLife International closed down its at Bemangidy at the next Committee Madagascar office. meeting.”43

Specific offset and community However, no further information about development activities are defined meetings, or minutes of meetings and together by Rio Tinto QMM and Asity. recommentations, is available on the For example, they have jointly prepared Rio Tinto Madagascar website. It is a strategy for 2015-2019, including not clear if the Biodiversity Committee budgets that are negotiated annually met in 2015, nor how much money between Asity and Rio Tinto QMM. allocated to the Bemangidy biodiversity The communities are not involved in offset has actually directly benefitted these negotiations, nor are they aware communities such as the village of of the activities included or the budget Antsotso, that are affected by the available to Asity for activities in their Bemangidy offset project. villages. We estimate that Asity put forward a budget for 2015/2019 of at The Asity budget for the biodiversity least USD 350,000 for management offset also includes funds to pay for of the biodiversity offset project at forest guards patrolling protected areas Bemangidy. For the activities in 2013 on State land to undertake extra visits / 2014, Asity received ‘bridge funding’ at the Rio Tinto QMM biodiversity which was supposed to pay for “daily offset site.

39 6. Reflections on the field investigation

“They do not come to ask, especially shifting cultivation—through they come to tell” to withholding of crucial information about the full scope and context of conservation projects as biodiversity report entitled ‘Unsustainable: offsets, and about the scale of the The Ugly Truth about Rio budget available to the implementing ATinto’, quotes Gemma NGOs. Holloway, a former volunteer with UK-registered NGO Azafady (working During meetings with villagers, at Sainte Luce, the location of it certainly became clear that the another of the three Rio Tinto QMM NGOs involved in the biodiversity biodiversity offset sites) and sustainable conservation activities and the development consultant to Rio Tinto company had not been sharing much QMM as saying that: “the company’s of the relevant information with track record on the environmental front villagers affected by the Bemangidy site has […] been far from exemplary and —certainly nothing that would come its involvement in forest management in even close to seeking free, prior and the areas around its existing and future informed consent (FPIC). For example, mining sites has aggravated relations with soon after our arrival in one village we local communities, and in some areas were told: led to increased forest degradation and communities retaliating against their loss of “The company QMM has this project ownership of local resources.”44 here to protect the forest, and they are bringing students from Tana Our visit to Bemangidy confirmed [Antananarivo, the Malagasy capital] to that the situation at the Bemangidy do research here in the forest. We don’t biodiversity offset site is the same as understand very much what QMM that described by Gemma Holloway wants here. They are planting some with respect to Sainte Luce: The trees and that’s it. We don’t understand project is causing hardship for local and we would be very grateful if you communities. There is exclusion could share more information on their at many levels, from restriction on plans.” villagers’ traditional use of the forest—

40 We also heard that Asity Villagers have to cross this lagoon to get from the representatives’ general response to village of Antsotso to their manioc fields in the sand dunes, the only place left for manioc cultivation since complaints has been ‘We hear you’. For the Rio Tinto QMMM biodiversity offset project instance, when people explained that restricts access to the fields traditionally used at the the payment for tree planting was too edge of the forest. low or that the promised agriculture projects had not started yet, nor the For example, we were told that because planting of trees near the road, the Rio Tinto QMM is undertaking the answer was inevitably ‘We hear you’. biodiversity offset with a view to “But then nothing happens,” villagers creating a “Net Positive Impact” on noted on several occasions. biodiversity, conservation NGOs had a particular obligation to help them Perhaps even more disturbing were succeed. revelations at meetings with Rio Tinto QMM and NGO representatives in To introduce the Bemangidy Fort Dauphin, following our visit biodiversity offset activities, NGO to the villages. In these meetings, staff engaged in a series of visits to we heard about methods and tactics the communities. Sometimes, these used to ‘make the offset project a were joint visits by the company and success’. These tactics are not a unique Asity; sometimes, Asity staff would occurrence in the conservation sector. visit the villages around the biodiversity But they are rarely shared in such a offset site without Rio Tinto QMM candid way. representatives.

41 These visits were presented alternatively Such “leveraging on the ecumenical as a means of implementing the offset culture” also facilitated alluding to project in a participatory manner God and ancestors as the ones who had and as being part of a process of requested protection of the forest “for slow persuasion. “Basically it was future generations and to respect the brainwashing,” we were told at one ancestors”. point in the conversation45. Tapping into the strong culture of In a first meeting, NGO staff would reciprocity in traditional customs— talk about the importance of the the importance of sharing, and the forest, followed by the presentation sentiment that if one does not learn of the biodiversity offset, which was how to give one will not receive—made introduced as a conservation project. it easier for the NGO to cast aside There would also be a harsh critique requests for compensation more easily. about current land use practises. Asity also take the view that it should We learned that not all community not be the NGOs elaborating the meetings went well. One meeting project proposals. While this would in particular, with Rio Tinto QMM appear a commendable approach representatives present, was described at first sight, it can also be a barrier as “a fiasco”, partly because villagers if circumstances prevent such had requested resolution of the community initiative. Asity insist that outstanding issue of compensation for the communities themselves come up lost access to the forest. with alternative income generation projects, on the basis that the whole To avoid a similar ‘fiasco’ at the process is about sharing rather than following meeting, Asity representatives giving. But what has been shared with visited villages without Rio Tinto communities we visited that might QMM and arranged for the meeting benefit them remains unclear. to start with a church service. The meeting on the offset project that Asity requires the communities’ followed the church service was project proposals to be “economically also held in the church, “to avoid viable”. To this end it has carried out disruption”46. It was thought that training sessions in villages about how people would remain calmer in a to put together a project proposal for church, and that it would be easier to alternative income generation, assess prevent the meeting from turning into the proposal’s economic feasibility, another ‘fiasco’. This was described as present a budget, and develop a “leveraging on the ecumenical culture”. financial management plan. This needs to generate sufficient income

42 Tree nursery at the Rio Tinto QMM Mandena Education Center.

Bemangaidy biodiversity offset site, of between 60,000 and 700,000 Ariary (16–200 euros) each. Most loans were small, with the justification that if people don’t know how to manage small amounts they won’t be able to manage big amounts: “Think big but start small.” For example, one villager had received 100,000 Ariary [28 euros] in August 2015 as micro-credit from Asity. He for the loan to be paid back. Villagers will have to pay back the loan from remembered the training, commenting September 2015 onwards, and finish the that initially, it was calling for mainly repayment in November 2015. He was women and the poorest people in told that he had to pay back his loan the community to participate, so that before another person could receive a they could benefit from an offer of micro-credit. microcredit. But most could not follow the training: There is another hurdle as well: To be considered for the different projects and “He gave a training on financial microcredit loans, villagers have to be management but it was too difficult. a member of the COBA and have to Especially for those who are illiterate, have paid their COBA membership fee. but even for those who have some level It seems this is a means of determining of education. Nobody understood what who is complying with conservation he said.” rules and use restrictions: “Those who In such a context, few will be able haven’t paid their fees, that’s usually to submit a project proposal, and the trouble-makers”, we were told in presumably even fewer a proposal that conversation. Considering the context will pass Asity’s economic viability in which COBAs are established and assessment. the role they play in enforcement of protected area management rules (see We were told that to date, Asity had Chapter 1), such pre-requisits can funded some 20 micro-credit loans easily turn into tools for enforcement (0 per cent interest loans) in the of conservation rules imposed on four COBAs that are linked to the communities.

43 The Rio Tinto conservation strategy advice about how to grow rice under includes community and environmental the conditions they face and substantial education activities at villages near financing to initiate such a project. offset sites. Asity staff mentioned that Advocating for rice to replace manioc projects were ongoing to “teach the as the staple food in such a context also villagers how to cultivate improved risks undermining food sovereignty in species of manioc to meet their food the villages, especially if there are no security.” rice growing projects underway. It could transform families hitherto producing Community members at Antsotso were their own manioc from being producers not aware that such improved manioc of their own food to consumers who seedlings were available to them. But rely on a staple food they do not they spoke about NGO community grow themselves (at all or in sufficient education activities that were quantity). This would increase reliance persuading communities to eat more on money (that villagers do not have) rice and less manioc. Traditionally, in to buy the staple food, and expose the villages we visited, communities eat villagers to the price shocks associated manioc for eleven months of the year with global commodities markets. and rice for one. NGOs are advocating for rice to replace manioc as the staple Overall, with regards to capacity food. building and alternative income generation activities, this project is a At the village of Iabakoho, where some showcase for why many such initiatives alternative food production activities fail. It seems to completely ignore the do appear to be taking place, a rice- realities of the villagers’ lives, even growing project is being implemented though they are supposed to be the with a German development NGO, beneficiaries of capacity building and Welthungerhilfe e.V.. The project alternative income generation activities. involves helping the community to set Nor does there seem to be much up paddy fields to grow rice in, as an interest in finding out what the actual alternative to the cultivation of manioc. needs in the villages are. But similar assistance had not been offered to the villages we visited. People On the whole, villagers at the mentioned that they had expressed communities visited as part of the their interest in this to Asity on several September 2015 field investigation occasions but Asity had never reacted or felt that the “Asity project is just top- offered to support the establishment of down. They don’t discuss with the a rice cultivation project. In particular, community.” the community felt they would need

44 7. What the visit taught us about the Rio Tinto QMM biodiversity offset

There is a wide gap between “Why should we suffer for someone the picture presented in else’s advantage? glossy brochures distributed We do not agree with this project” internationally about the Rio Tinto QMM biodiversity offset forest were promised but have yet to in south-eastern Madagascar materialise in any meaningful way47, and the reality for villagers while restrictions are already in place. living around the Bemangidy- In sum, communities that were Ivohive biodiversity offset site. struggling already before are now facing an increased risk of hunger The Re:Common and WRM field and deprivation as a direct result of a investigation in September 2015 biodiversity offset benefitting one of confirmed that communities had the world’s largest mining corporations. not been informed about the forest Yet Rio Tinto is able to claim that its conservation project being a biodiversity ilmenite mine has come “at the rescue offset for the Rio Tinto QMM ilmenite of the unique biodiversity of the littoral mine near Fort Dauphin, some 50 zone of Fort Dauphin”. This is despite kilometers south from the Bemangidy the fact that a large portion of the 1,650 biodiversity offset site. They were left to hectares of a rare littoral forest inside believe that Rio Tinto was exploring the the mining concession will be destroyed area for mining. during mining.

Villagers at the community of Antsotso The mining giant and its collaborators also felt that there had been no speak enthusiastically of a “Net Positive negotiation about land use restrictions Impact” on biodiversity, claiming that but that restrictions were imposed the coastal forest it is mining would on them with little regard for their have been destroyed anyway over the situation. Income generating alternatives next few decades by local peasant to alleviate the loss of access to the farming practises. The arguments used

45 to underpin this claim are certainly Sun setting over Rio Tinto QMM mine and harbour questionable. Regradless, Rio Tinto at Fort Dauphin. QMM argue that by retaining some forest inside the mining concession as livelihoods of villagers affected not well as protecting and restoring forest only by the mining itself but also by the elsewhere that is similar to the one being biodiversity offset are made even more destroyed at the mine, the company’s precarious so Rio Tinto can increase its mining activities will result in a “Net profits from the extraction of ilmenite. Positive Impact” on biodiversity, compared to what might otherwise have been. They further claim that the forest at the biodiversity offset sites would have been destroyed through peasant farming without the activities implemented by Rio Tinto and its partners through the biodiversity offset.

The reality, however, is very different from the story in the glossy brochures distributed internationally! Subsistence

46 Further information

-- Re:Common, Collectif TANY, SIF -- Friends of the Earth (2012): Mada- (2013): Land grabbing in Madagascar: gascar: Nouvel eldorado des compagnies Echoes and testimonies from the field. minières et pétrolières. www.recommon.org - Download link: http://www.recommon.org/eng/?wpd- -- Bidaud, C. et al. (2015): Voluntary mact=process&did=MTQuaG90bGlu- biodiversity offset strategies in Madagascar. aw== Ecosystem Services (2015).

-- Andrews Lees Trust and Panos -- Seagle, Caroline (2012): The min- (2009): Voices of Change. A collection of ing-conservation nexus: Rio Tinto, devel- testimonies from farmers impacted by the opment ‘gifts’ and contested compensation Rio Tinto QMM mine. www.andrews- in Madagascar. The Land Deal Politics leestrust.org/hepa.htm Initiative.

-- Harbinson, Rod (2007): Development -- Virah Sawmy, Malika (2009): Eco- Recast? A review of the impact of the Rio system management in Madagascar during Tinto Ilmenite Mine in Southern Mada- global change. Conservation Letters, 2: gascar. Panos report for Friends of the 163–170. Earth. -- Friends of the Earth Internation- -- Lambolez, Fred and Jean Marie al (2015): Financialization of Nature. Pernelle (2013): Je veux ma part de terre – Creating a New Nature. Booklet. Madagascar. Video documentary. http://www.foei.org/wp-content/up- loads/2015/10/Financialization-of-Na- ture-brochure-English.pdf

47 Endnotes

1. QMM stands for Qit Madagascar Min- groups rather than the public agency erals S.A., in which the Malagasy state Madagascar National parks, which holds 20 per cent and Rio Tinto 80 per manages the ca. 50 “historic” protected cent. Rio Tinto QMM is the name of the areas established between 1927 and 1999. Rio Tinto subsidiary that runs the mining As part of this management transfer to operations at the Fort Dauphin ilmenite private sector conservation groups, the mine. government implemented a number of management transfer contracts (trans- 2. IUCN, is the world’s oldest and largest ferts de gestion), implemented under the global environmental organisation, with 1996 GELOSE law (Gestion Localisée almost 1,300 government and non-gov- Sécurisée or Local and Secured Man- ernmental organisations as members. agement) and related 2001 GCF decree (Gestion Contractualisée des Forêts or 3. For a selection of references, see C. Contractualized Forests Management). Seagle (2011). The mining-conservation For more information on management nexus Rio Tinto, development ‘gifts’ and transfers in Madagascar, see Jacques contested compensation in Madagascar. Pollini et al. (2014): The transfer of LDPI Working Paper 11, P. 6 natural resource management rights to local communities. In: Ivan R. Scales 4. For detail on how Rio Tinto calculates (ed): Conservation and Environmental the biodiversity equivalences between the Management in Madagascar. forest destroyed at the QMM ilmenite mine and the forests used to offset the 8. A national road connecting Fort Dauphin destruction, see Re:Common and WRM and Farafagana passes the villages. It is (2016): Rio Tinto in Madagascar: A mine currently being upgraded and the road at the rescue of destroying the unique works on the stretch that passes the villag- biodiversity of the littoral zone of Fort es has been providing temporary work for Dauphin. some villagers.

5. For an overview of the mine’s history, see 9. Olsen, Nathalie, Bishop, Joshua and An- Land Grabbing in Madagascar: Echos stee, Stuart (2011). Exploring ecosystem and Testimonies from the Field – 2013 valuation to move towards net positive impact on biodiversity in the mining sec- 6. For more information on this latest tor. IUCN and Rio Tinto Technical Series application of offsetting see Metin Akyol, report No. 1. Michael Neugart, Stefan Pichler (2015): A tradable employment quota. Labour 10. Asity project staff explanation of the pur- Economics, Volume 36, October 2015: pose of the project they are implementing 48-63. with Rio Tinto QMM.

7. New protected areas established after 11. See for example, ‘Carbon Crooks’, a film 2003 / 2004 tend to be managed by by Tom Heinemann (Link: http://tom- national or international conservation heinemann.dk/the-carbon-crooks/) or

48 ‘The Carbon Rush’ by Amy Miller (Link: and biodiversity offsets in Madagascar: http://thecarbonrush.net/ ) Conservation or ‘Conservation Opportu- nities?’ Mongabay, 30 August 2009. 12. Interpol News Release. ( Link: http:/ www.interpol.int/News-and-media/ 22. http://www.birdlife.org/communi- News/2013/PR090 ) ty-blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/ BirdLife-2011-Tsitongambarika-book-En. 13. This is what the IFC Performance Stand- pdf ard number 6 says. 23. Background, http://www.riotintomada- 14. See WRM Bulletin No. 222, March / gascar.com/english/bioBackground.asp April 2016, for more detail. http://wrm. org.uy 24. Suivi environnemental – Un bilan positif des cinq premières années, N. 002 Mag- 15. REDD stands for Reducing Emissions azine semestriel QMM, Octobre 2014 from Deforestation and Degradation of (http://www.riotintomadagascar.com/ tropical forests. The plus was added to al- pdf/fasimaintyoct14.pdf) low not only forest conservation but also logging and planting of trees to generate 25. Seagle, Caroline (2012): The mining-con- offset credits. servation nexus: Rio Tinto, development ‘gifts’ and contested compensation in 16. See for example, WRM (2015): REDD. Madagascar. The Land Deal Politics A Collection of Conflicts, Contradictions Initiative. Page 26. and Lies. (Link ) 26. Description of Rio Tinto’s Net Positive 17. Information about the many other con- Impact strategy on the billboards in the flicts and controversies linked with Rio Office of Mandena Conservation Site Tinto mining operations can be found at the London Mining Network and In- 27. A mine at the rescue of the unique dustriAll global union website and report biodiversity of the littoral zone of Fort Unsustainable: the ugly truth about Rio Dauphin, QIT Madagascar Minerals SA Tinto. Press Kit, 2009.

18. Rio Tinto Biodiversity Strategy – Sus- 28. http://bbop.forest-trends.org/docu- taining a natural balance, Rio Tinto 2004 ments/files/forecasting_npi_at_qmm.pdf http://www.riotinto.com/SustainableRe- view/Landaccess/programmes/Biodiver- 29. http://www.riotintomadagascar.com/ sity/pdf/BiodiversityStrategy.pdf english/pdfs/factsheets/QMM%20 Fact%20Sheet%20Biodiversity.pdf 19. IndustriALL (2012): Rio Tinto in Africa. Global Citizen or Corporate Shame? 30. The actual time it takes to get to Beman- http://www.industriall-union.org/sites/ gidy depends on how many vehicles are default/files/uploads/documents/indus- waiting at the three small ferry crossings triall-rio-tinto-africa-report.pdf along the way.

20. See the World Bank website for a detailed 31. State Decree n. 2015-720 of 23 June evaluation of the ‘Integrated Growth 2015. Poles Project for Madagascar’ pro- gramme. (Link ) 32. http://www.birdlife.org/communi- ty-blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/ 21. Rowan Moore Gerety (2009): Mining BirdLife-2011-Tsitongambarika-book-En.pdf

49 prospecting to biodiversity offsetting in 33. BirdLife, undated: Direct Payments for Madagascar. Benjamin D. Neimark and Conservation in Madagascar. http:// Bradley Wilson. Geoforum 22 (2015). www.birdlife.org/sites/default/files/ attachments/Direct%20Payments%20 43. http://www.riotintomadagascar.com/ for%20Conservation%20in%20Madagas- english/com2014b.asp car%20rt_5.pdf 44. IndustriALL (2014): Unsustainable: the 34. “Forecasting the path towards a Net Pos- ugly truth about Rio Tinto. Page 14. itive Impact on biodiversity for Rio Tinto QMM”, H. J. Temple, S. Anstee, J. Ek- 45. Response from Asity, received on 08 strom, J. D. Pilgrim, J. Rabenantoandro, April 2016 by Email: “la façon dont on J-B. Ramanamanjato, F. Randriatafika a rédigé la phrase ne relate pas vraiment and M. Vincelette. IUCN and Rio Tinto la réalité. Primo, le « lavage de cerveau Technical Series No.2; Biodiversity, Pos- » n’est pas le mot approprié, mieux vaut itive impact of the programme: http:// dire que c’est un moyen d’apporter des www.riotinto.com/diamondsandminer- éclaircissements pour la population. als/biodiversity-15520.aspx#faq-5 Secundo, les visites servent à sensibiliser la population sur les tenants et aboutis- 35. http://www.riotinto.com/documents/ sants du projet Offset.” [The manner in ReportsPublications/MDG_Biodiversity- which the sentence is written does not offsets.pdf Page 5. really reflect reality. First, “brain-washing is not the appropriate word, it is better to 36. Rio Tinto QMM Biodiversity Committee say that it is a process of clarification for page on Rio Tinto’s website: www.riotin- the population. Second, the visits serve tomadagascar.com/english/biocom.asp to raise awareness about how the Offset project works.] 37. http://www.riotintomadagascar.com/ pdf/NPI.pdf 46. Response from Asity, received on 08 38. http://www.birdlife.org/communi- April 2016 by Email: “En voici la réalité ty-blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/ : tout au début, des groupes de per- BirdLife-2011-Tsitongambarika-book-En. sonnes trouvaient toujours les moyens pdf de perturber la réunion. Pour éviter cela, nous avons négocié avec les responsables 39. http://www.riotintomadagascar.com/ de l’Eglise de Iaboakoho à débuter la english/biocom.asp réunion par une prière, et de prendre les décisions difficiles dans l’église même.” 40. http://www.iucn.org/about/work/ [“Here’s the reality: at the beginning, programmes/business/bbp_work/by_en- groups of people always find ways to gagement/rio_tinto/ disrupt such meetings. To avoid this, we negotiated with the leaders of the Church 41. Ganzhorn et al. (2007): Biodiversity, at Iaboakoho to start the meeting with a ecology and conservation of littoral prayer, and to take the tough decisions in ecosystems in Southeastern Madagas- the church.”] car, Tolagnaro (Fort Dauphin) and the supplemental publication, Temple et al. 47. Community members felt that the (2012): Forecasting the path towards a micro-credit activities approved so far in net positive impact. IUCN and Rio Tinto their communities were not providing Technical Series report No.2. alternatives for the loss of land on which to grow food. 42. Re-mining the collection: From bio-

50 Rio Tinto’s biodiversity offset in Madagascar Double landgrab in the name of biodiversity?

In recent years mining companies have become actively engaged in promoting ‘biodiversity offsetting’ as a way of ‘greening’ the mining sector. One offset project in particular, the Rio Tinto QMM biodiversity offset in the Anosy region of southeastern Madagascar, has been widely advertised as a biodiversity offset model.

Rio Tinto and its partners from the conservation sector claim that the company’s biodiversity conservation strategy will not only compensate for biodiversity loss but that mining will even have a “Net Positive Impact” on biodiversity in the end. However, a joint Re:Common and WRM field investigation in 2015 found that the reality is very different from the story in the glossy brochures distributed internationally.

Subsistence livelihoods of villagers are made even more precarious so Rio Tinto can increase its profits. Villagers at one biodiversity offset site felt that restrictions had been imposed without negotiation and with little regard for their situation. Income-generating alternatives to alleviate the loss of access to the forest had been promised but have yet to materialise while severe restrictions on community forest use are already in place.

[email protected] [email protected] wrm.org.uy www.recommon.org