

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Tom Griffiths: 00 44 7889 343 380 or Conrad Feather 00 44 7792979817, conrad@forestpeoples.org
Robert Guimaraes Vasquez, a leader of the Shipibo-Konibo indigenous people in Peru's Amazon has travelled to a global forum in London on business, deforestation and human rights to highlight the destruction of his people's traditional lands by an international agribusiness group and member of the RSPO (Round Table for Sustainable Palm oil), a global body that certifies that the production and trade of palm oil is sustainable and respects human rights.
Robert Guimaraes Vasquez, a leader of the Shipibo-Konibo indigenous people in Peru's Amazon has travelled to a global forum in London on business, deforestation and human rights to highlight the destruction of his people's traditional lands by an international agribusiness group and member of the RSPO (Round Table for Sustainable Palm oil), a global body that certifies that the production and trade of palm oil is sustainable and respects human rights.
"We don't understand how it's possible that a member of the RSPO can be violating its own environmental rules and human rights commitments. The community is preparing a formal complaint" said Mr Guimaraes.
The case concerns the Shipibo community of Santa Clara de Uchunya whose lands were acquired by a Peruvian company, Plantaciones de Pucallpa SAC (one of only two RSPO members in Peru) in 2012 in an undisclosed deal with the regional government of Ucayali. The community only realized when the first bulldozers began destroying the forest. Determined community resistance, including confiscation of company machinery and occupation of the lands combined with continuous lobbying of local authorities and central government finally resulted in a high level investigation in August 2015 by the Ministry of Agriculture.
On the 2nd September, and in a historic victory for the community, the Ministry of Agriculture ordered the immediate suspension of all operations. The judgment determined that the deforestation had been entirely illegal as none of the environmental permits required for forest clearance had been issued. To make matters even more embarrassing for the government, all conversion of primary forest, an estimated 80% of the affected area, is expressly forbidden in Peru.
The damage however had been done. Today, only 25 hectares, or 0.3%, of the parcel of land formally acquired by Plantaciones de Pucallpa in 2012, remained standing. In just three years, over 5200 hectares of Santa Clara's ancestral forests had been destroyed.
Local activist Washington Bolivar describes the impact on the community. "Our lands have been devastated, all the forest is gone, and the streams are completely churned up and blocked, there is now only one stream we can still use for clean drinking water".
What the Ministry of Agriculture failed to highlight however was the central government's own collusion in this destruction. The Peruvian government is legally required to ensure that the traditional lands of indigenous peoples, like the inhabitants of Santa Clara, are duly recognised. However, despite continued demands for resolution of their land rights over decades, Santa Clara is one of at least 1174 communities in the Peruvian amazon whose demands for full legal recognition of their lands remains pending. AIDESEP, Peru's national indigenous organisation estimates that in total, approximately 20 million hectares of indigenous peoples' lands in the Amazon remain unrecognised in Peruvian law This failure has been identified by a recent national level study compiled by AIDESEP and FPP as one of the key barriers preventing Peru's government from meeting its target to reduce deforestation to zero by 2021.*
The failure to recognize these lands and to ensure adequate safeguards were in place meant that in 2012 the Regional Government of Ucayali sold Santa Clara's lands to Plantaciones de Pucallpa. Today, the village, which is home to over 500 inhabitants whose subsistence livelihood depend almost entirely on hunting, fishing and gathering of forest resources, formally holds title to only approximately 200 hectares of land. Community members explain how this is already inadequate to meet their basic farming needs.
Mr Bolivar lays the blame for the situation squarely at the feet of local government. "There is only one party to blame, the regional government of Ucayali who sold off our lands without even speaking to us. Only when we started protesting did the company and the government officials try to sweet talk us but it is too late, there is nothing to discuss. Our demands are simple, we want the company to withdraw immediately from our lands and held to account for the destruction it has caused, we want measure to regenerate the forest and compensation for the community."
Ultimately, the community is demanding resolution of its longstanding land issue and filed a formal application for a land 'extension' in March 2015 to encompass the remainder of their traditional lands that have now been designated as a forestry concession. Until these rights are recognized they highlight that the deforestation of their lands as it gets sold off for logging or palm oil or invaded by land grabbers is likely to continue despite their efforts.
Plantaciones de Pucallpa is one of many companies registered in Peru which recent investigations have exposed are actually part of a complex network of companies that appear to be effectively controlled by Dennis Melka, a businessman who founded the Malaysian agribusiness company Asian Plantations whose operations have been similarly controversial in Sarawak, Malaysia.**
Holding those responsible to account is hampered by a model deployed by the Melka group in both Peru and Sarawak. This is based on multiple layers of shell companies and the registration of many in offshore tax havens where the identity of investors and owners is concealed. In the case of Plantaciones de Pucallpa, the holding company is United Oils Ltd. SEZC registered in the Cayman islands.
"The complexity of the supply chain of a commodity like palm oil means that consumers and even buyers are not even able to trace the origins of their palm oil. We know that Plantaciones de Pucallpa is an RSPO member but who really owns and controls this company? If we are not even able to find out who is really behind this forest destruction then how do communities like Santa Clara hold companies like these to account?" said Tom Griffiths of FPPs Responsible Finance Programme.
Challenging the deforestation has not come without its consequences for community members. Leaders like Mr Guimaraes and Mr Bolivar have been subjected to continuous threats.
"I get death threats all the time, my life is in danger and I have to move from one place to another. I live in fear, there are always people who follow me and I get threatening calls on my phone. They even threaten my sister".
Mr Guimaraes highlighted that this is a problem for all indigenous peoples in Peru's Amazon and particularly those in Ucayali. This came to international attention in 2014 with the infamous case of Saweto, four indigenous leaders, including the prize winning Edwin Chota, struggling to secure a land title for their community were killed by assassins linked to a powerful logging mafia with interests in Saweto's lands.
"It is good that there is an outcry and that institutions declare their solidarity but human rights defenders need the support now, we don't only want the awards when we are dead. In addition, in spite of the high profile of the case of Saweto, nobody has been sentenced. The message for us is clear. In Peru, there is total impunity for those who kill indigenous people."
Mr Guimaraes will be speaking out in an international event taking place in London about commodity supply chains, deforestation and human rights in which major global agribusiness operators and policy makers will be participating.***
For further background information please click here.
Forest Peoples Programme supports the rights of peoples who live in forests and depend on them for their livelihoods. We work to create political space for forest peoples to secure their rights, control their lands and decide their own futures.
"They are willing to keep the government shut down, they are so determined to make you pay more for healthcare," said Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy.
US Sen. Chris Murphy said Saturday that the GOP's rejection of Democrats' compromise proposal to extend enhanced Affordable Care Act tax credits for a year in exchange for reopening the federal government shows that the Republican Party is "absolutely committed to raising your costs."
" Republicans are refusing to negotiate," Murphy (D-Conn.) said in a video posted to social media, arguing that President Donald Trump and the GOP's continued stonewalling is "further confirmation" that Republicans are uninterested in preventing disastrous premium increases.
"They are willing to keep the government shut down, they are so determined to make you pay more for healthcare," the senator added.
An update on the shutdown.
Senate Republicans continue to refuse to negotiate. House Republicans refuse to even show up to DC.
Democrats just made a new reasonable compromise offer. And if Republicans reject it, it's proof of how determined they are to raise health premiums. pic.twitter.com/JUBPMMXKC7
— Chris Murphy 🟧 (@ChrisMurphyCT) November 8, 2025
More than 20 million Americans who purchase health insurance on the ACA marketplace receive enhanced tax credits that are set to expire at the end of the year if Congress doesn't act. So far, the Republican leadership in the Senate has only offered to hold a vote on the ACA subsidies, with no guarantee of the outcome, in exchange for Democratic votes to reopen the government.
People across the country are already seeing their premiums surge, and if the subsidies are allowed to lapse, costs are expected to rise further and millions will likely go uninsured.
“Clearly, the GOP didn’t learn their lesson after the shellacking they got in Tuesday’s elections,” said Protect Our Care president Brad Woodhouse. “They would rather keep the government shut down, depriving Americans of their paychecks and food assistance, than let working families keep the healthcare tax credits they need to afford lifesaving coverage. Good luck explaining that to the American people."
In a post to his social media platform on Saturday, Trump made clear that he remains opposed to extending the ACA tax credits, calling on Republicans to instead send money that would have been used for the subsidies "directly to the people so that they can purchase their own, much better healthcare."
Trump provided no details on how such a plan would work. Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), who was at the center of the largest healthcare fraud case in US history, declared that he is "writing the bill now," suggesting that the funds would go to "HSA-style accounts."
Democrats immediately panned the idea.
"This is, unsurprisingly, nonsensical," said Murphy. "Is he suggesting eliminating health insurance and giving people a few thousand dollars instead? And then when they get a cancer diagnosis they just go bankrupt? He is so unserious. That's why we are shut down and Americans know it."
Polling data released Thursday by the health policy group KFF showed that nearly three-quarters of the US public wants Congress to extend the ACA subsidies
"More than half (55%) of those who purchase their own health insurance say Democrats should refuse to approve a budget that does not include an extension for ACA subsidies," KFF found. "Notably, past KFF polls have shown that nearly half of adults enrolled in ACA marketplace plans identify as Republican or lean Republican."
"Why would corporations spend millions on Trump's ballroom or Bitcoin? Because they're getting billions in unlegislated tax breaks," said one Democratic lawmaker.
The Trump administration is quietly waging an all-out regulatory war on a Biden-era corporate tax that aimed to prevent large companies from dodging their tax liabilities while reporting huge profits.
The corporate alternative minimum tax (CAMT) was enacted as part of the Inflation Reduction Act, Democratic legislation that former President Joe Biden signed into law in 2022. The CAMT requires highly profitable US corporations to pay a tax of at least 15% on their so-called book profits, the figures reported to shareholders.
As the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy has explained: "Many of the special breaks that corporations use to avoid taxes work by allowing companies to report profits to the IRS that are much smaller than their book profits. Corporate leaders prefer to report low profits to the IRS (to reduce taxes) and high profits to the public (to attract investors)."
But since President Donald Trump took office in January, his administration has issued guidance and regulatory proposals designed to gut the CAMT. The effort is a boon to corporate giants and rich private equity investors at a time when the Trump administration is relentlessly attacking programs for low-income Americans, including Medicaid and nutrition assistance.
The New York Times reported Saturday that "with its various tax relief provisions, the administration is now effectively adding hundreds of billions of dollars in new breaks for big businesses and investors" on top of the trillions of dollars in tax cuts included in the Trump-GOP budget law enacted over the summer.
"The Treasury is empowered to write rules to help the IRS carry out tax laws passed by Congress," the newspaper added. "But the aggressive actions of the Trump administration raise questions about whether it is exceeding its legal authority."
Why would corporations spend millions on Trump's ballroom or bitcoin?
Because they're getting billions in unlegislated tax breaks.
We've gone from a system where the rich must pay taxes for public services, to one where they must pay the president for private favors.
— Tom Malinowski (@Malinowski) November 8, 2025
The administration's assault on the CAMT has drawn scrutiny from members of Congress.
In a September 8 letter to US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, a group of Democratic lawmakers and Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) warned that the administration's guidance notices "create new loopholes in the corporate alternative minimum tax for the largest and wealthiest corporations."
"Most troubling, Notice 2025-27, issued this June, allows companies to avoid CAMT if their income—under a simplified accounting method—is below $800 million," the lawmakers wrote. "The Biden administration previously set the safe harbor threshold precisely at $500 million in its proposed CAMT rule after calculating that a higher safe harbor threshold would risk exempting corporations that should be subject to CAMT under statute."
"Now, less than nine months later and with zero justification, this new guidance summarily asserts that an $800 million safe harbor will not run that risk," they continued. "We are seriously concerned that this cursory loosening of CAMT enforcement will simply allow more wealthy corporations to avoid paying their legally owed share."
"This is insane," said US Rep. Pramila Jayapal. "Trump is jumping through hoops to block SNAP."
The US Supreme Court late Friday temporarily blocked a lower court order that required the Trump administration to fully fund Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits as the government shutdown drags on with no end in sight.
One wrinkle in the case is that the Supreme Court order, which came after the Trump administration appealed the lower court directive, was handed down by liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Her brief order came after the Massachusetts-based US Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit opted not to swiftly intervene in the case.
Jackson, who is tasked with handling emergency issues from the 1st Circuit, wrote that her administrative stay in the case will end 48 hours after the appeals court issues a ruling in the case.
The justice's order came after states across the US had already begun distributing SNAP benefits after a district court judge directed the Trump administration to release billions of dollars in funds by Friday.
"Some people woke up Friday with the money already on the debit-like EBT cards they use to buy groceries," NPR reported.
Steve Vladeck, a law professor at Georgetown University, wrote Friday that "it may surprise folks that Justice Jackson, who has been one of the most vocal critics of the court's behavior on emergency applications from the Trump administration, acquiesced in even a temporary pause of the district court's ruling in this case."
He continued:
But as I read the order, which says a lot more than a typical “administrative stay” from the Court, Jackson was stuck between a rock and a hard place—given the incredibly compressed timing that was created by the circumstances of the case.
In a world in which Justice Jackson either knew or suspected that at least five of the justices would grant temporary relief to the Trump administration if she didn’t, the way she structured the stay means that she was able to try to control the timing of the Supreme Court’s (forthcoming) review—and to create pressure for it to happen faster than it otherwise might have. In other words, it’s a compromise—one with which not everyone will agree, but which strikes me as eminently defensible under these unique (and, let’s be clear, maddening and entirely f-ing avoidable) circumstances.
The Trump administration has fought tooth and nail to flout its legal obligation to distribute SNAP funds during the shutdown as low-income Americans grow increasingly desperate and food bank demand skyrockets.
"This is insane," US Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) wrote after the administration appealed to the Supreme Court. "Trump is jumping through hoops to block SNAP. Follow the law, fund SNAP, and feed American families."
Maura Healey, the Democratic governor of Massachusetts—one of the states that quickly moved to process SNAP benefits following the district court order—said in a statement that "Trump should never have put the American people in this position."
"Families shouldn’t have had to go hungry because their president chose to put politics over their lives," said Healey.
Feeding America, a nonprofit network of hundreds of food banks across the US, said Friday that food banks bought nearly 325% more food through the organization's grocery purchase program during the week of October 27 than they did at the same time last year.
Donations to food banks, which were underresourced even prior to the shutdown, have also skyrocketed. The head of a Houston food bank said the organization is in "disaster response mode."
"Across the country, communities are feeling the real, human impact the shutdown is having on their neighbors and communities,” said Linda Nageotte, president and chief operating officer at Feeding America. "Families, seniors, veterans, and people with disabilities are showing strength through the hardship, and their communities are standing beside them—giving their time and money, and advocating so no one faces hunger alone.”