-
Uruguay: Four companies that should
not be certified
In
1987 legislation was adopted that implied the promotion – by means
of tax exemptions and subsidies – of large-scale monoculture alien
tree plantations (mainly eucalyptus and pine) for export.
It is thus that the country up till then based on agriculture
and stock raising, started to convert part of its fertile grasslands
into “green deserts” which presently cover over 700,000 hectares.
Concurrently,
increasing opposition to monoculture eucalyptus and pine plantations
took place. This opposition was partly the result of years
of campaigns and concrete condemnations by local environmental,
social and trade-union organizations who have been documenting
the impacts of this “forestry” model. However, “credit” also goes
to the forestry companies themselves, as their plantations have
proven to have the negative impacts predicted by civil society
organizations, while the companies’ social practices have left
much to be desired.
In 2001
the Forest Stewardship Council – FSC entered the picture, certifying
5,000 hectares of plantations owned by Industrias Forestales Arazati
(through the SmartWood certifier). For those familiar with the
company and its long track record of environmental destruction
(desiccation of wetlands) and anti union policy (including threats
to shoot Woodworkers Union representatives off the premises),
it was clear from the start that if this particular company could
be certified then all the others would be as well. And this is
in fact what has happened. One after another, the companies requesting
certification have obtained it, but the negative impacts continue
and worsen as monoculture tree plantations – certified or not
– grow to cover increasingly larger areas of land in different
points of the country.
In August
2005 seven companies in Uruguay had plantations certified by FSC,
with a total certified area of 133,711 hectares. Out of these,
five had plantations covering areas over 5,000 hectares, while
two were small plantations (31 and 184 hectares respectively).
Regarding the origin of the capital, two were foreign (the Finnish
company COFOSA and the Spanish company EUFORES) and the remaining
companies were national. Five were certified by SGS Qualifor,
while the other two were certified by SmartWood (Rainforest Alliance).
Field work
carried out by WRM at the end of 2005 and published in March 2006
(“Greenwash: Critical analysis of FSC certification of industrial
tree monocultures in Uruguay”, http://www.wrm.org.uy/countries/Uruguay/text.pdf),
describes the main certified companies in Uruguay (EUFORES, COFOSA,
FYMNSA, COFUSA) and reaches the conclusion that none of four companies
examined complies with the explicit mandate of FSC which sets
out that “The Forest Stewardship Council promotes
environmentally responsible, socially beneficial and economically
viable management of the world’s forests”[sic].
In WRM Bulletin
No. 104, we made reference in our article on Uruguay to the results
of the study. The serious negative impacts on water, flora – particularly
affecting grasslands, the country’s main ecosystem and basis for
agriculture and animal husbandry production – fauna and landscape
reveal that the certified plantations do not fulfil the conditions
of “environmentally responsible” natural resource management.
Furthermore,
the promotion of monoculture tree plantations has led to various
trends. Company benefits from the forestry model are optimized
under a latifundium system with an increase in the purchase of
vast tracts of land – mainly by foreign companies. In turn this
is an activity which excludes other productive activities because
of the negative impacts it causes, thus contributing to rural
migration. And employment promoted under this system is unstable,
seasonal and outsourced. All these circumstances go to
demolish the “socially beneficial” requisite
Regarding
the requisite of “economically viable,” what can be observed is
that, had it not been for the enormous direct and indirect subsidies
– ranging from tax exemptions to highway building and maintenance
– received from the State, that is to say, from the Uruguayan
people, tree plantations would certainly not have been implemented
in the country.
Finally
and in the concrete case of Uruguay, certification of these plantations
does not contribute to the promotion of sustainable forest management
(forests are protected by law) and endorses the complete destruction
of the country’s main ecosystem (the grasslands). .
Additionally,
certification implies a weakening of local opposition because
the companies receive a so-called “green label,” granted by a
prestigious institution, in which social and environmental NGOs
actively participate and that were actually those that created
and promoted this certification scheme.
The fact
is that these certifications erode the credibility of FSC, as
its original terms of reference were aimed at the protection of
forests through their appropriate management. The very fact that
FSC considers plantations to be “forests” is detrimental to its
credibility and added to certification of large monoculture tree
plantations, in fact implies that it declares them to be “environmentally
responsible, socially beneficial and economically viable”
(as defined by its mandate).
