The pulp mill dispute was a dispute between Argentina and Uruguay concerning the construction of pulp mills on the Uruguay River. The presidents at the time were Néstor Kirchner (Argentina) and Tabaré Vázquez (Uruguay). As a diplomatic, economic, and public relations conflict between both parties, the dispute also affected tourism and transportation as well as the otherwise amicable relations between the two countries. The feud was unprecedented between the two countries, which have shared historical and cultural ties."Argentine blockade irks neighbours"
Proceedings were brought before the International Court of Justice as a case formally named Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay). It ruled that, although Uruguay failed to inform Argentina of the operations, it did not pollute the river, so closing the pulp mill would be unjustified. The conflict ended in 2010, during the presidencies of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (Argentina) and José Mujica (Uruguay), with the establishment of a joint coordination of the activities in the river.
Origin of the dispute After twenty years of forest industry development, in October 2003, the Spanish company ENCE, received permission from the Uruguayan government to build a pulp mill in Fray Bentos, on the Uruguay River (which forms the natural border north between Brazil and Argentina and in the south between Uruguay and Argentina).
Argentines residing mainly in Gualeguaychú, Entre Ríos, about 35 km from Fray Bentos, had been concerned that ENCE's pulp mill would pollute the river. Also, some demonstrations had been organized against ENCE.
After ENCE received its permit, another company, the Finnish Botnia, made public their intention to consider the same area for another pulp mill. Botnia received the environmental authorization to build a mill in February 2005.
The Uruguay River is shared by the two countries and is protected by a treaty, which requires both parties to inform the other of any project that might affect the river. Besides the issue of pollution, Argentina claimed that the Uruguayan government had not asked for permission to build the mills. Uruguayan authorities countered that the Treaty did not require that permission be obtained, but merely that the other part be appropriately informed, and that conversations had indeed been held and filed, without objections on the Argentine part. In addition, they claimed that the technology used in the mills would avoid polluting the river to the extent claimed by the Argentine government, and that more modern wastewater treatment would have a beneficial effect when used for local sewage treatment as well. Before the construction of the mill, sewage from the city of Fray Bentos was discharged to the river untreated. These claims were backed by neutral expert statements given to the IFC.Botnia willing to contribute in improving the Rio Uruguay river water – Press release by Metsä-Botnia.
The first protests
On 30 April 2005, just two months after President Vazquez and his government took power in Uruguay, and two months after the mills were publicly approved, a large group of 10,000–20,000 people (residents of Gualeguaychú and nearby, as well as environmental groups from Argentina) blocked the international Libertador General San Martín Bridge (between Gualeguaychú and Fray Bentos) protesting the installation of the pulp mills. The demonstrations were organized by the Environmental Assembly of Gualeguaychú with the goal of bringing attention to possible negative effects that the mills could have on the environment. The people who participated in the demonstrations hoped that by bringing attention to the conflict, the construction of the mills would be interrupted. If this was not feasible, they hoped, at the very least, that the actions taken by the mills would be improved such that the environment, specifically the river, would not be negatively affected.
Demonstrators did not allow any cars to get through to the bridge. The only vehicles that could drive through it were cars and trucks from farms, as well as Uruguayans who regularly shopped in Argentina (due good exchange rates). However, these Uruguayans would have to park their vehicles near the roadblock and walk through the demonstration and people before they could get in a rental car that drove them to the markets. Protesters agreed that Uruguayan shoppers were allowed to walk through the demonstration safely and without maltreatment. Furthermore, their vehicles were not attacked.
In September 2005, the Center for Human Rights and Environment (CEDHA)CEDHA filed a complaint to the Compliance Advisory Ombudsman (CAO) of the World Bank (which oversees IFC project compliance with social and environmental norms). The CAO eventually released two reports, a preliminary report and an audit. The audit report was critical of the procedures the IFC followed pertaining to the project.
A draft cumulative impact study of the two mills by the International Finance Corporation (IFC) of the World Bank was released on 19 December. According to it, the technical requirements of the mills had been fulfilled and the quality of the water and the air in the region should not be harmed. The IFC said it would wait for further consultations to be made before finalizing the study and thus before financing the projects.
On 23 December, about 50 Gualeguaychú residents again blocked Route 136 and the General San Martín Bridge, using rubble, logs and vehicles. The block, slated for 8 a.m., started at 5 a.m., angering many drivers who were forced to take a detour to the next bridge, which goes from Colón to Paysandú. Later this bridge was blocked as well. Many Argentines usually travel to Uruguay in the summer, often beginning immediately before Christmas.
Legal and diplomatic escalation
On 26 December, the Uruguayan chancellor Reinaldo Gargano accused Argentina of violating Mercosur regulations on freedom of circulation of goods, and spoke to Argentine chancellor Jorge Taiana, requesting that measures be taken to avoid harming the tourist season. A few hours later, Argentina ratified the protest, asked to suspend the factories' construction, and threatened to make the matter a legal conflict.
The Citizens' Environmental Assembly of Gualeguaychú simultaneously blocked the three bridges that link the province of Entre Ríos with Uruguay on 30 December 2005. The following days saw intermittent blockades and protests, with volunteers handing pamphlets and explaining the passers-by the reasons for their rejection of the paper factories.
Argentine Head of Environmental Affairs, Raúl Estrada Oyuela, went on record proposing to boycott the production of the mills. On 2 January 2006 the Uruguayan government rejected this forcefully. The municipal intendant of Río Negro Department, Omar Lafluf, said that most Uruguayans supported the factories; a survey released on 5 January showed that only 16% were against them.
At this point, Greenpeace activists met with Uruguayan officials to request suspension of the works. The Uruguayan government prepared a pamphlet to be handed out to Argentine tourists, informing them of the technical aspects of environmental safety of the factories. The roadblocks soon became scheduled events. Greenpeace later refused to take any further action, claiming that as long as Botnia does not pollute the river and follows the same conditions requested to build and run a mill of this sort in Europe, there is no problem with the pulp mill at all.
Chile became indirectly involved, as several Chilean trucks carrying equipment and materials for the Botnia project across Argentina were detained by the roadblocks before they could cross the border to Uruguay near the end of their journey.
Responding to a request by governor Busti, on 25 January 2006 the Argentine national government announced it would take the issue to the International Court of Justice in The Hague, accusing Uruguay of violating the bilateral Treaty of Uruguay River dealing with the conservation of the Uruguay River; Uruguay's chancellor Gargano called this "a grave step" which bypassed and ignored the institutions of the Mercosur, and said Uruguay would protest the lack of action of the Argentine government with regards to the roadblocks at the Controversy Resolution Tribunal of Asunción.
On 30 January the High Level Technical Group (Grupo Técnico de Alto Nivel, GTAN), a joint Argentine-Uruguayan commission for the study of the impact of the paper factories, ended deliberations with the two countries issuing separate statements. The Argentine Foreign Ministry accused the Uruguayan members of GTAN of withholding information, which the Uruguayan officials denied. The GTAN had met 180 days before, as mandated by the Uruguay River Statute.
The government of Entre Ríos, in the meantime, distributed 100,000 pamphlets about the paper factories and their alleged impact among those attending the Cosquín music festival in Córdoba, which ended on 29 January.
February 2006 On 6 February 2006 Uruguayan President Tabaré Vázquez acknowledged that he had spoken on the phone to Argentine President Néstor Kirchner the previous week, in order to look for a solution of the conflict. Regardless, he also announced that in any event the construction of the mills would not be halted by the Uruguayan government.
On 3 February 2006 members of the Gualeguaychú Environmental Assembly had started a long-term blockade of Route 136, leading to the Libertador General San Martín Bridge and to Fray Bentos. Several votes were taken on the issue, in every case resolving to maintain the blockade.
At the beginning of the blockade, Jorge Eduardo Lozano, designated bishop of Gualeguaychú, stated that he supported the protesters because theirs was "a just cause", though he also spoke of the need to look for "reasonable alternatives". The archbishop of Montevideo, Nicolás Cotugno, offered to mediate.
In the meantime, the citizens of Gualeguaychú, after an assembly, rejected the mediation of Nobel Peace Prize-winner Adolfo Pérez Esquivel; he had asked them to end the blockades while talks were conducted.
On 12 February about 400 people, gathered by the Colón Environmental Assembly, went in nearly 100 vehicles from Colón (100 km north of Gualeguaychú) to the international General Artigas Bridge, demonstrating there and creating a traffic disruption. This temporal measure was followed, on 16 February, by a blockade of Route 135 and the bridge, which links Colón with Paysandú in Uruguay.
All these earlier actions were targeted to impact the public hearings of Cumulative Impact Study, held by IFC on 14 and 16 in both Montevideo and Buenos Aires.
On 20 February the Uruguayan government decided to accuse Argentina before the Organization of American States, for its lack of action on the matter of the blocks. The same day, the Supreme Court of Argentina rejected the case presented by Argentines against Uruguay, returning it to Guillermo Quadrini, federal judge of Concepción del Uruguay.
The School of Chemistry of the University of the Republic, Uruguay, released an open letter to Uruguayan society on 22 February. They reported that TCF-derived paper can be recycled fewer times than ECF-derived paper. The TCF process is 5% more expensive, and needs 10% more fuel and wood to make the same amount of paper than ECF process; therefore, it releases 10% more greenhouse gases. The letter stated that ECF and TCF are accepted as "best available technologies" in developed countries, and toxic emissions are minimal (specially dioxins), which implies that emissions depend on management and controls, not on whether TCF or ECF processes are used.
March 2006