Luis Alberto Gonzáles-Zúñiga granted us this interview, just hours after being removed by the government from the Executive Board of the National Forest and Wildlife Service (SERFOR). In it, in addition to telling us about his numerous impasses with Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation authorities, he directly blames the minister for his sudden departure.

By Renzo Anselmo

Servindi, June 7, 2020.- On the same day that the President of the Republic issued a message, on his social media, for World Environment Day, the government published a resolution that terminated the appointment of the Executive Director of the Service National Forest and Wildlife (SERFOR).

In the words of the now former head of SERFOR, Luis Alberto Gonzáles-Zuñiga, his management during these sixteen months was "a pebble in the shoe" for the economic interests that lie behind the fight against environmental crimes such as illegal logging, which is so rooted in Peru. Servindi spoke with the official about the circumstances of his dismissal and the arbitrary way in which it occurred.

- We understand that on June 4, the day before your dismissal, you were summoned to a meeting at the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation (MINAGRI) to discuss a proposal on the land use change regulation. After listening to the proposal, you were against it. What did these regulations suggest, and why did you disagree?

Actually, this regulation was like the straw that broke the camel’s back. There have been several issues, all aimed at weakening SERFOR's authority. In this case, let us pretend that I have 100 hectares of forest in the Amazon, as the regulations are now, I cannot not cut down that forest. The proposal, made by the General Directorate of Agrarian Environmental Affairs (DGAAA), proposed that if I, as the owner of those 100 hectares of forest, made a soil analysis of those lands and verified their farming potential, I could cut down the 100 hectares of forest and plant any crop.

It was a completely different thing from what had already been agreed in a consensus that took two years to obtain between the Ministry of the Environment (MINAM), MINAGRI, SERFOR and, of course, the indigenous organizations. Unfortunately, it was not approved last year, and in January, we were suddenly called to discuss another proposal. We said no way; we thought that was it, until I was called to this virtual meeting last Monday.

- In March, you publicly denounced that the Deputy Minister of Agrarian Policies of the MINAGRI, Paula Carrión Tello, summoned you to a private meeting and asked for your resignation without justification. Today, three months later, the minister and the president have signed your dismissal. In all this time, have you had any communication with the vice minister or with any authority of the MINAGRI concerning your performance as the head of SERFOR?

No. As soon as I finished talking to the vice minister that day, I called the Chief of the Cabinet of Advisors [from the MINAGRI], Mirco Miranda. I told him what had happened at the meeting and that she had asked me to resign without having the power to do so, because I entered the position by public tender. She told me that it was a Senior Management´s decision. I told her to send me a formal letter and I would reply to them. They never sent it. I reached out to the media and reported this. Until then, I was part of a group chat where there were two vice-ministers, the secretary general and the heads of the other organizations. The day after that meeting, they took me out of the group chat.

- You just said that since you joined the SERFOR Executive Board, you did not feel MINAGRI backed you up in the decision to undertake a firm fight against illegal logging and other illegal activities. What facts or situations lead you to state this?

In general, the MINAGRI is not the right place for SERFOR and it is not because the MINAGRI is mainly dedicated to crops, livestock and hydraulic projects that Minister Montenegro likes very much. Forests do not exist on their radar. There is much ignorance about the forestry sector, but they are not interested in it either. That translates into the budget amount that is allocated. Out of all the forestry authorities in Latin America, SERFOR's budget is the lowest, considering the size of the forest that we have to attend to.

"I told her not to invite them because they were among the criminals we had to fight against, but she kept calling them."

- But there was some impasse with your functions, some impediment or limitation ...

A lot of it. For example, when the Forest Executive Work Group was reactivated in the Vizcarra administration, which is a good mechanism because it brings together the private and public sectors to identify bottlenecks and see how they can be overcome, Ivonne Echevarría assumed the coordination. She summoned the CONAFOR to meetings, an organization that has the same name as our advisory council, nonetheless they are the main defenders of illegality in our country and, mainly, in the forests. I told her not to invite them because they were among the criminals we had to fight against, but she kept calling them. Moreover, of course, they have been the ones who have organized the main manifestations to oppose the operation books in Iquitos and Pucallpa.

Another example: Four months ago, we learned that a scheme had begun to take control from SERFOR and give it to Supervisory Agency for Timber Forest Resources (OSINFOR). This control, together with promotion, were established when creating SERFOR. Promoting of forestry development within a framework of legality, and for it to be so, control is needed, which means fighting against environmental crimes. All this [scheme] was managed by the vice minister (Paula Carrión) and her advisor Gian Carlo Pezo, a forestry engineer who was separated from SERFOR for the crimes he committed: he would take the money for traveling expenses when he went out to make the visits, and inflated the expenses. We sent a letter to the vice minister about this; she never answered us.

One more example: It is known that the three regional governments where 80% of the wood comes from are Loreto, Ucayali and Madre de Dios. In the case of Ucayali, the forest manager Marcial Pezo is a person with a history. Once we alerted him, with our anti-logging alert system, that there was going to be an illegal operation. The operation was not carried out and, a week later, the forest manager sends me an email, with a copy to the minister and the vice-minister, saying how could we have alert them of an operation that did not take place, and that we must reform our alert system. I replied that our role is to send the alerts and his role as a manager, was to evaluate each of these alerts. After a week, we sent other alerts and he ignored them. The prosecution and the police seized a large amount of wood.

- Regarding the way in which you were removed from office. You were chosen for 5 years through a public tender, but now you are being dismissed alleging of loss of trust and confidence. Is this not an absolute contradiction?

“I think (...) the Minister of Agriculture surprised the President.”

Yes, well, it is incredible. How can the President of the Republic say that he has lost confidence in me, if I have never met him? He has never asked me for a report on how the forestry sector is performing. I think, and it is my hypothesis, that the Minister of Agriculture surprised the President. The other thing is the colonial language used in the resolution [of his dismissal]. First they say they lost the confidence in me, and later, they thank me for the services provided. How are you going to thank a person you do not trust?

- Have you thought about why they decided to dismiss you at this time?

I think that was planned for any moment. Now, what seems very irresponsible to me is that, in the midst of a pandemic, and when the President of the Republic calls for national unity, these kinds of decisions are made, and to top it off this happened on World Environment Day.

 “[My departure] I think it was already a made decision, indeed, by the minister himself. [...] It is not about me, but about procedures and institutions that, in our beloved country, cost so much to build.”

- Can there be any relation between what happened at the last meeting and your dismissal the next day?

I think it was already a made decision, indeed, by the minister himself. We were presenting ideas so that our forests are not only used for timber purposes, but for ecosystem services. We were promoting the growth of these types of organizations that aim to conserve forests. Nevertheless, we were a pebble in their shoe.

“We were are a pebble in their shoe”

Look, I am the Executive Director of SERFOR and reported to the SERFOR Board of Directors. It took many years to build this council and, for the first time, this council organizes a public tender. There are representatives of native, peasant, civil society organizations, the private sector, regional and local governments, and the academia; yet this council was never consulted, either before or after this decision. This is a matter of principle because it is not about me, but about procedures and institutions that, in our beloved country, are so difficult to build and, this decision only generates discomfort, frustration and rejection.

- Precisely, a statement by civil society groups and indigenous and native peoples warns that you departure —as it happened— is irregular and that it would be violating the institutionalism of the Board of Directors that elected you through the first public tender in history of the SERFOR. Would this lead to a legal action?

Definitely. I am exploring that because there is a basis. Actually, I am not a political official, but a career one. When I was selected, I acquired that status and therefore I was not a management official. They cannot tell me whether I lose trust and confidence or not, unless I make a serious mistake and it is analyzed, investigated and because of that mistake, I am being changed. However, there is none of that. I am 73 years old and have over 45 years of work experience, but I have never had such a frustrating experience as the last 6 months of work.

“I have never had such a frustrating experience as the last 6 months of work.”

- One of your last decisions as head of the SERFOR was the issuance of protocols that enable the reactivation of the forestry sector. This, despite the fact that some indigenous and civil society organizations warned that the reactivation, in these circumstances, puts native communities at risk of getting the virus. Now that you have been dismissed, looking back, do you consider that the protocols issued guarantee a non-violation of native communities’ health?  Would you make any observations to those protocols?

The protocols are instruments that help, when these operations restart, to have zero impacts on the community. However, they just help, they do not guarantee. What we were considering within the Amazon is to exclude for Loreto and Ucayali [from the reactivation process] because there is where the pandemic is expanding in an impressive way. We were coordinating this with the Vice Ministry of Culture. I personally agree with that idea. That is why there is flexibility, because if you think that the protocols are carved in stone, you are dead. The protocols have to be adapted to our reality.

----
Source URL: https://www.servindi.org/actualidad-entrevistas-noticias/06/06/2020/exjefe-del-serformi-salida-ya-era-una-decision-tomada 

It may interest you