Civil Society, Environment, Headlines, Latin America & the Caribbean

ARGENTINA-URUGUAY: Protesters Resume Roadblock in Pulp Mill Conflict

Marcela Valente

BUENOS AIRES, Apr 5 2006 (IPS) - Local residents in the town of Gualeguaychú, who are spearheading the resistance in Argentina to two paper pulp mills being built across a border river in Uruguay, ignored the advice of their legal representatives Wednesday and began to block traffic again over a bridge linking the two countries.

They took that hard-line decision despite the fact that the two governments had basically reached an agreement pointing in the direction of a solution to the long-running conflict.

According to several sources in Argentina, the protesters’ decision will play into the hands of the two foreign companies building the plants, Botnia from Finland and ENCE from Spain.

The demonstrators, who are worried about the air and water pollution that could be caused by the pulp factories, had begun to block traffic across the bridge on the Uruguay River intermittently in late December, and kept the roadblock in place for 43 days in a row until Mar. 21.

Gualeguaychú is located near the Uruguay River, in the northeastern Argentine province of Entre Ríos

The members of the Citizen Environmental Assembly of Gualeguaychú ignored the recommendations of their legal advisers and the national government – which has acted as their ally in the conflict with Uruguay – and adopted the measure just when the negotiators and the two companies had agreed on stricter controls for the factories.

The drastic decision came the day after Presidents Néstor Kirchner of Argentina and Tabaré Vázquez of Uruguay cancelled a meeting for the second time, because Botnia refused to bring work on its plant near the town of Fray Bentos in southwestern Uruguay to a halt for 90 days, as demanded by the protesters and agreed on by the presidents.

A well-informed source in the Argentine Foreign Ministry, who preferred to remain anonymous, told IPS that an agreement between Buenos Aires y Montevideo had already been reached.

The source said the two governments had agreed on the declaration that was to be signed by the presidents in the meeting that was called off on Tuesday, including arrangements for an independent environmental impact study to be carried out by a binational commission that would have 90 days to produce its report.

“The terms of reference that were approved would have revealed the production methods to be used by Botnia, which it has been concealing. It was undoubtedly for that reason that the company, which at first had agreed to a 90-day freeze in construction work, changed its mind and reduced the period to just 10 days,” said the source, who helped draft the agreement between the two governments.

“It’s as if the members of the Gualeguaychú Assembly were working for Botnia,” he said angrily.

In his opinion, a communiqué in which the Finnish pulp maker gave its assurances that it would continue to provide all of the “available” information on the factory in Uruguay demonstrated that the firm has not handed over all of the information on the bleaching and waste treatment methods that it plans to use.

After Botnia said it would only bring construction to a halt for 10 days, the Uruguayan government announced Tuesday that Argentina considered that too short a period for carrying out an independent environmental impact study, and the meeting between the presidents was suspended. But the dialogue between the two left-leaning governments continues to move ahead smoothly.

Argentine cabinet chief Alberto Fernández, the chief negotiator in the conflict, took a cautious stance, but blamed the company for the second cancellation of the presidents’ meeting, which had already been postponed a week earlier for the governments to make some changes to the agreement.

Romina Picolotti, the legal representative of the Gualeguaychú Assembly and the provincial government of Entre Ríos, also struck a cautious tone.

Picolotti said that “for the first time, Argentina’s position in the conflict is strong,” in the face of a difficulty that has arisen in Uruguay due to Botnia’s refusal to submit its factory to an independent impact study.

The decision to block traffic once again “is not a good strategy, in either political or legal terms,” said Picolotti, who is the president of the Centre for Human Rights and the Environment.

“I am not saying they shouldn’t continue their protests. What I am saying is that they should not block traffic on the bridge, because that could prompt Uruguay to turn to the Mercosur (Common Southern Market) dispute settlement tribunal, which would be counterproductive,” warned the lawyer. (Argentina and Uruguay are partners in the Mercosur trade bloc, along with Brazil and Paraguay).

But the Assembly ignored Picolotti’s advice. “The irritation over the cancellation of the presidential meeting triggered an action plan that we had already approved,” said the Assembly in a statement issued shortly after the members voted to resume the traffic blockade.

A similar resolution was expected to be reached late Wednesday by the residents of Colón, located further upstream along the Uruguay River. Protesters there have also blocked the bridge connecting that Argentine town with Paysandú in Uruguay.

Buenos Aires fears that Montevideo will now file a complaint against the roadblocks in the dispute settlement body in Mercosur, whose treaties guarantee the free circulation of goods and people.

The roadblocks, which have coincided with the southern hemisphere summer, blocked the flow of tourists to Uruguay’s beaches, as well as the transportation of goods, causing serious damages to the Uruguayan economy.

If Uruguay resorts to the Mercosur dispute settlement body, that could complicate an eventual complaint by Argentina in the International Court of Justice in The Hague over the fact that Uruguay authorised the construction of the two plants and river port on the Uruguay River without consulting the binational commission that administers the border river in accordance with a 1975 treaty.

“Botnia launched a provocation, and the Argentine government told the Gualeguaychú Assembly not to react, because if they did they would be playing into the hands of the company. But we were unable to convince them. Now, with this attitude, they are benefiting the companies,” protested the source with the Argentine Foreign Ministry.

The official did not rule out the possibility that internal political interests opposed to the Kirchner administration had conspired to make the agreement fail, by inciting the Gualeguaychú Assembly to block traffic again.

Argentina’s complaints against the construction of the two pulp factories, which are being built for a combined total investment of 1.8 billion dollars – the biggest single investment in the history of Uruguay – were first voiced in 2003, when the Uruguayan government that preceded the Vázquez administration authorised construction of the plants.

The Finnish plant will produce up to one million tons of paper pulp a year, and the ENCE factory will produce 500,000 tons – double the total output of the nearly one dozen pulp mills operating in Argentina.

But the Kirchner administration is not giving up, and appears to be preparing to take aim against the companies. “We will do everything possible for this to bring down the value of Botnia’s shares, and we will report to the public that the firm concealed information on the production methods to be used, from those who plan to finance the works,” said the Foreign Ministry official.