|
|
Publications
|
Africa: Forests under threat SOUTH AFRICA A new pulp mill that will produce between 400,000 and 500,000 metric tonnes a year, largely for export, is being planned for the Umtata-Kokstad-Ugie triangle. According to Enoch Gogongwana, provincial MEC (Member of the Executive Council) for Economic Affairs, Environment and Tourism, such project would create 600 direct and 1000 indirect jobs. The total investment would involve some 1.5 billion Rands. The above implies a cost of 937 000 rands per job -direct and indirect- created. By comparison, a non forestry-related community project put together at Mkambati, will provide 138 jobs at a cost of 6000 rands per job, and all enterprises (more than 10) participating in the project will be owned and run by the community, with the result that the money will stay in the community. Additional problems are the environmental and health impacts associated with pulp mills, which are not something new to South Africa. It has been said that "the smell, choking and feeling of skin burning just driving past the pulp mill near Nelsruit is terrible." If the new pulp mill is to be situated in the Kokstad-Ugie-Umtata triangle, then at least one river may end up being polluted, given that all rivers in this area flow into the Umzimvubu river, which catches 56% of Transkei's water. October 1997.
"Social benefits" of industrial tree plantations The Forest Owners' Association recently released a report from results of a survey during the first nine months of last year on "crime and violence" in the so-called South African forests (in reality large industrial eucalyptus and pine tree plantations) in the Kwazulu Natal area. The survey covered 54% of total afforestation in the country -over 800.000 hectares. According to a company's forest manager, plantations "were increasingly becoming safe heavens for people who lived in violence-torn rural townships, which mostly neighboured the plantations." Crime, arson and theft were the main problems highlighted by the survey. Crime against individuals resulted in 380 deaths and 115 seriously injured people. According to the report, "people were being shot on the way to work, timber-carrying trucks were being fired at, and intimidation was becoming a serious problem." Arson was responsible for 1093 or 74% of all forest (plantations) fires and 2825 hectares were damaged by arson during the period. Some 30.000 tons of timber was stolen in the same period. Industry is "deeply concerned" about the issue and the largest corporations (including Mondi and Sappi) have met the South African Police Service and the South African National Defence Force to find solutions. It has also had to invest heavily in security, fire fighting and communications equipment. December 1997.
Good news The Kruger National Park is to be enlarged by 5,000 hectares, while by the same agreement recently concluded, the Makuleke community regains its right to 25,000 hectares of Kruger Park lands. Settlement of the Makuleke land claim came just in time for the celebration of the centenary of Kruger National Park on March 25. In 1968 the Makuleke community was forced to leave their lands now falling within the borders of the Kruger National Park. By the terms of the newly reached agreement with South Africa National Parks (SANP), the Pafuri area -at the northern boundary of the Park- will be returned to the community composed of 1,800 families, while maintaining the conservation status of the land. "We have here a very important piece of real estate, which should be preserved for our people. However, it is important that this should happen in the context of people having full access to, and full utilisation of their land. This is a win-win situation" said the spokesman of Makulele community. March 1998.
The ways of the powerful pulp industry Timber plantations have been a part of the South African landscape for more than a century. Colonial settlement brought a wide range of exotic tree species. Not all were successful, but it soon became clear that Australian acacias and eucalyptus were well suited to conditions in the Eastern part of South Africa. It has always been accepted that these trees, together with Pine species introduced more recently, play an important role in the local economy. As natural forests had been seriously depleted during the nineteenth century, it was considered necessary to obtain alternative, fast-growing trees to meet the growing demand for building timber, mine-props, packaging material and of course more recently, to feed the local paper mills. This situation soon began to change when it was realised that external demand for timber products could stimulate exports from South Africa. A Rayon mill was built by an Italian company at the coastal town of Mkomazi around 1950. Effluent from the mill was pumped directly into a river which entered the sea a few kilometres downstream. This gave South Africans their first taste (and smell) of serious atmospheric and marine pollution. Subsequently the SAPPI mill was built on the Tukela River at the town of Mandeni. The smell of this mill was detectable up to 50 km away, and liquid effluent was sprayed onto a large tract of land near the mill. Only after the giant SAPPI mill at Ngodwana, and the MONDI mill at Richards Bay, were put into production did people start to take a more serious view of the situation. Environmental awareness helped people to make the connection between respiratory disease and atmospheric pollution. A serious effluent spill at the Ngodwana Mill put shocking pictures of dead fish on the front pages of newspapers and people started to ask questions about the true impacts of these mills. As raw timber was desperately needed to feed the hungry mills, the two companies already mentioned, SAPPI and MONDI, together with a number of smaller players, went on a buying spree, paying very high prices for land in close proximity to their mills so that they could consolidate their operations into vast estates and take advantage of lower transport costs. In their hurry to plant up all this new land, very little consideration was given to environmental impacts -trees were planted in wetlands and streams and estate managers were paid bonuses to maximise production in these areas. Even public land including road reserves and commonage was ruthlessly planted to trees with no thought given to the consequences. At about this time the South African government decided to "commercialise" the state-owned timber plantations and SAFCOL (South African Timber Company Ltd) was born. Before very long they (SAFCOL) too had jumped onto the bandwagon and got busy with planting more trees into all the natural grasslands that had been excluded previously due to their ecological sensitivity. The ways of Corporate tree-planters It has been estimated that the larger corporate entities responsible for the expansion of pulpwood plantations in South Africa spend more money and effort on propaganda than on actual environmental protection and restoration. Their reaction to public criticism of their actions is to spend more money on advertising in journals and newspapers. They sponsor a wide range of "Environmental" projects - from bird and flower books to education and waste recycling. In recent years it has been part of the timber companies' strategy to employ "environmentalists" to interface with their critics. In many cases these people are recruited from government conservation agencies who appear to be easily tempted by prospects of employment in the corporate world. These paid "environmentalists" are used as spokespeople -making statements to the media- speaking at schools and clubs, spreading the false message that their employers are actually improving the environment by planting millions of exotic trees. At shows and fairs, pine tree seedlings are given to schoolchildren as part of the brainwashing exercise. Poorly informed people are duped into believing that all trees are good. In order to defuse public anger over loss of natural surface water caused by plantations they install boreholes in the affected areas. People who previously had clean water virtually at their doorsteps are then forced to carry water over long distances to their houses and gardens. Areas where crops such as bananas, potatoes, cabbages and many others could be grown without irrigation before are now too dry. Cattle and goats are forced to overcrowd
the few remaining natural springs and rivers -damaging rivers and stream
banks- trampling and polluting springs and ponds, making this water
unfit for human consumption. The companies provide seedlings and basic information on how to establish the woodlot, after persuading subsistence farmers that they will become wealthy when their trees are ready for harvesting in seven or eight years' time! What they fail to do is to inform prospective "woodlot" owners of the environmental and social consequences of their actions. - They do not warn them not to plant in wetlands
or close to rivers and streams. Claims of creating employment for local people do not explain what happened to people previously employed on the land. With the expansion of the plantation companies' landholdings, many people who were employed in vegetable, sugar cane or livestock farming are ejected from homes and land they have occupied for many years. It is the policy of the plantation companies to consolidate smaller farms into large "blocks" which can be managed by a single "forester". Farm houses, sheds and staff accommodation cottages are demolished to make way for contiguous plantations. People who may have lived on these farms all their lives are forced to relocate to overpopulated tribal areas where they have to build new houses -relocate their children to already overcrowded schools- look for new jobs in sectors where they lack appropriate experience and know-how. To make matters worse, most of the work opportunities created by the timber companies is sourced out to contractors who are not obliged to offer normal fringe benefits associated with permanent employment. Many of these contractors prefer to use desperate illegal immigrants who are prepared to work for lower wages and cannot belong to a labour union. State complicity in the development of the industry Pulp and paper mills in South Africa have benefitted from massive financial incentives, both directly through assistance from the IDC (Industrial Development Corporation) and indirectly through access to cheap water and electricity, free pollution, and very favourable tax laws. This gives the industry a significant advantage, together with its ability to manipulate the price of roundwood through its own extensive plantations. By holding the raw log price as low as possible, it is possible to ensure that maximum profits are accrued to the mills. Both MONDI and SAPPI have acquired mills in Europe and other northern countries. The simple explanation for this is that they need a guaranteed outlet for the products of their South African operations. The less obvious explanation may be that these investments are a way of laundering the surplus accumulated profits made at the expense of South Africa's environment and people. Planned expansion of plantations It is the stated intention of the industry to increase the area in South Africa by 600,000 hectares more -which would add to the existing 1.5 million- and they also aim to establish extensive plantations in Mozambique. What is of serious concern is that intensive research into the development of cold-resistant strains of eucalyptus species is being undertaken. If this research is successful it could mean that vast tracts of the interior which presently consist of grasslands and grain production farms, could fall victim to tree plantations. The grassland areas inland of the sub-tropical coastal belt are vital to water production in South Africa. They are able to absorb rainfall in the summer which is then released slowly to feed rivers and streams during the dry winter. If extensive tree plantations were to be established in these areas, it would jeopardise the supply of water to farmers and townspeople situated downstream as well as exascerbate soil erosion. Computerised mechanical harvesting machines have been imported by MONDI. These machines operate 24 hours a day, felling, pruning, debarking, cutting and stacking. Three eight-hour shifts employing three people as opposed to an estimated 200 workers using manual methods - leaving 197 workers made redundant by a single machine. Most plantation operators have also converted from labour-intensive weed control methods to using herbicides applied by specialist contractors. Once again resulting in fewer people being employed directly by the industry. In sum -as elsewhere else- this forestry model is clearly showing that, although highly beneficial for large corporations, its social and environmental impacts make its unsustainable in the long run. People in South Africa are already organizing oposition and its environmental and social impacts are becoming clearer as the industry expands over larger areas of the country and even to neighbouring countries. July 1998.
Exotic tree plantations are green wastelands What follows is a contribution sent by a new friend of the WRM for its dissemination, which highlights problems caused by tree monocultures in his country: "Adapt or die I live in the province of Mpumalanga (where the sun rises), South Africa. I live on a protected reserve, close to the Sudwala Caves and Rainforest. The immediate area surrounding the reserve is under exotic plantations, and it is obvious to see the effect of this model on the environment. I often think of the mountain. I imagine every living thing being luminous, so that they would glow at night. I like to think that plants would have a soft glow, trees like the giant wild figs or beautiful Stinkwoods would glow brighter. Insects would glitter, a mouse would gleam, an owl radiate, a leopard shine. In the reserve I see the mountain, shimmering with life. When I look beyond, at the vast areas of exotics I see a monotonous feeble glow. Exotic tree plantations ARE green wastelands. They smother the indigenous life, not allowing enough water and light to sustain growth. No plants, no insects, no birds, no reptiles, no mammals. Small pockets of indigenous growth is preserved, mostly as a public relations exercise, and it is not enough to compensate for loss of habitat. Programs are in place to clear clogged water ways, but much too slowly, and, it seems, as if it has little effect on the overall runoff, as huge areas of water catchment should be cleared. Many residents of this region experience escalating water shortages, due to plantations. Legislation are in place to secure wetlands, but it is not enforced due to lack of man power. I believe exotic plantations should be cut back drastically. No more new planting permits should be issued. Plantation managers should change to environmentally friendly products, which would be more labor intensive as harvests occur on a yearly basis. It is not nice to be thirsty, that is why
water is such an emotive issue. Water shortage could lead to serious
conflict in the future, as many countries in southern Africa share rivers
as borders. In September 1998, troops from South Africa and Botswana
invaded Lesotho to quell political uprising. Fierce fighting occurred
to secure the Katse dam, a vital link in the Lesotho Highlands Water
project. This project holds water reserves for use in South Africa.
It has been suggested that the "war" was motivated, at least
in part, by the need to secure the strategic water reserve.
Privatizing plantations The South African government announced in March 1999 that the state-owned timber plantations company SAFCOL, would be privatized. The company owns 332,000 hectares of commercial tree plantations and other assets valued at between 1 and 1.5 billion Rand (some160-250 million US dollars). Although a number of social concerns are said to be part of the move (job creation, human resources development, promoting greater diversity of ownership and developing downstream activities), the fact is that the true beneficiaries will be the large national and transnational corporations. One of those is MONDI, which is one of the biggest and most powerful corporations operating in the pulp and paper sector in South Africa. Its plantations have expanded with no consideration to environmental impacts on soils, grasslands, wetlands and streams, menacing water supply. Even public land including road reserves and commonage was used to establish tree monocultures. The environmental and health impacts associated with its pulp mills have also caused concern and resistance by affected communities. The company has adopted an aggressive policy of expansion. In May 1996 Mondi became one of Aracruz Celulose's three major shareholders. It has also acquired mills in Europe and other northern countries. Now Mondi is moving to take advantage of the privatisation of SAFCOL to further concentrate on its pulp and paper operations. The idea is to sell some of its timber plantations and sawmills in Mpumalanga, linking the sale to SAFCOL's and thereby obtaining a better price for the sale. SAFCOL's 120,000 hectares of plantations in Mpumalanga can be combined with its own 143,000 hectares of plantations in Mpumalanga and Swaziland. The combined 263,000 hectares of plantations are composed of 195,000 hectares of softwood plantations and 68,000 hectares of hardwood plantations. Many SAFCOL and MONDI plantations in these areas are adjacent and can therefore be transformed into management units in order to "enable the production of high-quality products at sufficiently low cost for international markets". MONDI would thus reduce its participation in the sawmilling sector, which has been facing difficult times recently, with falling demand for sawn timber and higher sawlog prices and concentrate on its core business (pulp, paper and packaging). Mondi owns 460,000 more hectares of plantations in South Africa, which it would retain to supply its pulp and paper operations, while it could also bid for other SAFCOL plantations composed of the adequate species and in the right locations to feed its pulpmills. However, MONDI is not the only company interested in the sale. The other big local player in the South African plantation and pulp industry -SAPPI- is also among the 16 companies short-listed for the bid. Stand-alone international firms on the list are the Swedish defence and car group Saab, Indonesia's Barito Pacific Timber and Saudi Arabia's Tarik Al-Zahid Group. Two other foreign companies, which have entered consortia with local entities, also appear on the short list. These are the Londoloza Eco-African Forest Holdings consortium, made up of Italy's Gruppo Mauro Saviola, Magnaboard Holdings and Formalchem Holdings; and Madiba Forestry Consortium, which includes the York Timber Organisation, Portugal's Sonae Industria and empowerment group Madiba Mills. Bidders can bid for the asset as a whole, for any one of seven packages that have been identified, or for any combination of packages. The underlying land will not be sold. Instead the assets will be offered on a long-term lease. Bidders will be asked to make an up-front payment as well as an annual rental payment reflecting the value of the land. Lease conditions will include -according to government officials- obligations regarding environmental management and the needs of local communities. Some forestry workers are to be transferred to the new owners' businesses, with the number reflecting the industry average a hectare. The wage rate will be the same as that paid by SAFCOL. If the above is seen within the context of the negative environmental and social record of both the private and public forestry companies in South Africa, the conclusion is that local communities, forestry workers and environmentalists will need to make their voices heard if they wish to improve the prevailing conditions. What's clear is that the main beneficiaries of this privatization will be the large private companies. May 1999.
Resistance to tree monocultures in grasslands Even if natural forests in South Africa do not occupy more than 300,000 hectares, this country is an important exporter of wood products. They come from pine and eucalyptus plantations that quickly expanded during the last decades. Large corporations - as SAPPI and MONDI - and the South African State itself - through SAFCOL - have been responsible for the expansion of tree monocultures in grasslands. Nowadays plantations have reached 1.5 million hectares and the powerful pulp industry intends to increase the area by 600,000 hectares more. Companies are also aiming at setting up extensive plantations in neighbouring Mozambique. In this period of globalization, MONDI is expanding abroad and in May 1996 became one of Aracruz Celulose's main shareholders. In spite of the propaganda efforts developed by plantation companies, who are trying to show themselves as champions of nature conservation, opposition is increasing. The effects of tree monocultures, causing grasslands biodiversity reduction and water resources shortages are apparent. Air and river pollution by pulp mills has also been denounced. Small peasants are being taken over partially or totally and forced to move their cattle or even to migrate and abandon their lands. People are reacting against this invasion and in some places direct actions have been taken. In the Kwazulu Natal area, 2,825 hectares of plantations were damaged by arson, a type of action that was responsible for most plantation fires during 1997. People are organizing and increasingly challenging the spread of plantations. TimberWatch, a South African network, is currently monitoring the expansion of plantations in that country. Another movement (SAWaC, South African Water Crisis) was formed by a group of individuals who recognize a looming water crisis in Southern Africa and are working to overcome it. SAWaC has denounced that monoculture tree plantations are one of the major causes of this crisis. They have been established mostly in the transitional areas from the coastal lowlands to the high veld, the areas of highest rainfall and very high biodiversity, thereby impacting on these two crucially important resources. July 1999.
Industrial timber plantations - asset and liability Industrial timber plantations go under the name of forestry. This is deceiving, as it carries the image of beautiful indigenous forests. South Africa needs timber for pulp and paper manufacture, building material, furniture and many other uses, but we must not lose sight of its cost to our country. These plantations are monocultures of highly invasive, alien plants that cover vast areas of some of the most fertile land in our country. We all know how wattles have spread across South Africa until they are one of the most destructive weeds we have. They can only be eradicated by carefully following a special programme. Pine, too, are seriously invasive, particularly in colder climates like our Drakensberg. As we drive around our country, many of the trees we see are eucalyptus that are also progressively invading the land. At present, there are about 1.5 million hectares of industrial plantations. What is of greater concern, is that there are an estimated additional 1.6 million hectares of "jungle" invasion. Using CSIR modelling, it is estimated that the formal plantations use 1.4 trillion litres of water a year. The jungle tracts are mainly older trees and often grow in streams, so they probably use an additional two or more billion cubic metres of water a year. The situation begs answers to at least two critical questions. Should the timber industry carry on demanding more land for plantations while our country suffers with this vast jungle invasion? Who should take responsibility for preventing the further invasion of these alien trees resulting from industrial plantations? By: Bob de Laborde. August 1999.
The Big Lie The Tourism industry has done, and is doing much more for Responsible Environmental Management than the "forestry" industry. Maybe for this one reason only: It is rooted in Biodiversity. Alien tree plantations destroy the indigenous vegetation they replace. The basis of the food chain destroyed, local fauna and flora can not adapt and live in a plantation. When calculating the profit associated with tree farms, is the cost of the destruction to the natural environment ever brought into consideration? In a water stressed region, the negative
effect of alien plantations manifests dramatically in the availability
of water. There is thousands of hectares of "unmanaged" plantations, invader plantations. Everywhere you go in Mpumalanga, you see loose standing pines, bluegum and wattle. Clumps of it in difficult to reach valleys. Who is responsible for this problem? Surely the responsibility lies with the plantation industry themselves. That the industry like to refer to itself
as "forestry" is misleading. A monocrop should never be called
a forest. The majority of South Africa's timber farm products is being exported to fulfill the pulp need of the North. These developed countries make use of our cheap land, and cheap labor. How profitable is it to be an average plantation worker on a contractors team? In Mpumalanga province, managed plantations occupy 615,000 hectares and the industry employs 28,000 people in the same province. That makes one person on every 22 hectares. On that same 22 hectares the rights of all other indigenous living organisms have been totally denied. Can this be called responsible? The plantation industry will act responsibly
if they commit to NO further afforestation of our remaining natural
areas. The plantation industry would act responsibly if it uses its power derived from profit and growth to lobby government to legalize industrial hemp and experiment with this crop on their plantation degraded land. I am not suggesting that the plantation industry expand with hemp, I am suggesting that the plantation industry replace their exotic trees with indigenous hemp. It is true that profit and growth is the reality of this world. One only needs to drive from Piet Retief to Blyde River Canyon to realize that. But in order to ensure the survival of the human race, the emphasis will have to shift to sustainable development. We have to become aware that we are a integral part of the environment, and our impact on it, affects us directly. We have to concentrate our efforts into working with the environment, minimizing our impact and raising environmental awareness in each and every individual. By: Philip Owen. September - October 1999.
What are the true costs of woodlots? What is a woodlot? Is it a patch of land planted to trees for the purpose of supplying the fuel and timber needs of a rural community? Or is it a small portion of a giant industrial plantation, meeting the pulp and paper needs of first world industrial society? An exact answer to these questions would help to erase the uncertainty that exists in my mind. However, clear answers have not been forthcoming, and over the past twenty years, whilst living in Zululand, I have come to these conclusions. The conversion of grazing or other agricultural land into Eucalyptus plantations has been driven by the two larger timber-plantation companies in the area. In their eagerness to obtain control of suitable land for growing Eucalyptus, both SAPPI and Mondi embarked on a land acquisition spree in the late 1980's. Vast areas that once consisted of hundreds of independent, privately owned farms were purchased at what was then thought to be excessively high prices. These high prices were motivated by competition between the two major players and it was important to "close the gaps" that stood in the way of consolidating these farms into vast, mono-culture estates. This made it profitable for the last few farmers to hold out as long as possible, while SAPPI and Mondi battled to maintain their sources of raw material. After acquiring the land the timber companies embarked on a course that involved firstly, removing all former farm workers and the destruction of worker accommodation. Even expensive farm-houses and buildings, such as workshops and store rooms, were bull-dozed to make way for seemingly endless tracts of gum trees (Eucalyptus species). Where did the people who once lived on these farms go? Well, the white farm-owners received a great deal of money and were able to move away to comfortable homes in the midlands of KwaZulu-Natal or the Western Cape (two provinces in South Africa) or Australia. What happened to the farm workers is anyone's guess. Over-crowding in the tribal lands made returning to these areas impossible. I suspect that most of them were left with little choice but to head for the squatter settlements of Durban (South Africa's largest harbour) or Dukuduku (an area of sub-tropical forest adjacent to the Greater St Lucia World Heritage Site) where they could eke out a living. Once they had dealt with the problem of unwanted workers and buildings on the farms that they had purchased, the timber companies were then faced with another problem. This was the large numbers of staff that were inherited with the acquisition of the privately owned Waterton Timbers and Shell Forestry, (a subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell), by SAPPI and Mondi respectively. On a single day, SAPPI retrenched more than 600 workers from its Kwa-Mbonambi operation -all in the name of "rationalisation". This meant that the company would save a lot of money through not having to pay benefits to permanent employees. The risks of "unionisation" and strike action were passed on to the contractors who were appointed to supply labour and other services at cut-throat rates. Workers, who had formerly enjoyed all the normal benefits of permanent employment, were now reduced to having to beg or bribe for casual jobs on a daily basis. To make matters worse, this was in competition with desperate informal migrants from Mozambique. Many local people simply refused to work for the offered daily rate of R12.00 (approx. 2 US dollars). What does all of this have to do with woodlots?
Particularly woodlots on community land which belongs to the Ngonyama
Trust, representing His Majesty, King Goodwill Zwelethini (monarch of
the Zulu people)? Woodlots, which are de facto the property of the large plantation companies, but stand on land that they have neither purchased, nor paid any rent for. Woodlots, grown from seedlings supplied by the timber companies concerned, yet who refuse to take responsibility for the negative social and environmental problems that they cause! In the Sokhulu tribal area, situated to the north of Richards Bay, it is quite obvious that the dominant land use is Eucalyptus plantations. How did this come to be? Well, the answer is quite simple: Mondi had purchased as much white owned land as was possible, between the towns of Gingindhlovu, Babanango and Hluhluwe, yet could still not satisfy the need for wood at their mill at Richards Bay. They had no choice but to start looking at the community owned land in former Kwa-Zulu apartheid homeland. The Mondi RDP (Reconstruction and Development) "woodlot" project has been so "successful" that hardly any land at Sokhulu remains unplanted to Eucalyptus. Poor SAPPI, desperate not to lose the supply of raw material needed to keep it's Mandeni and Mkomazi mills going, was forced to look further north, to the rolling grasslands of coastal Maputaland. So desperate in fact, that they even tried their luck in southern Mozambique - thankfully without success! Reconstruction and Development cannot be served by removing peoples' means to survive in the rural environment. So what is happening? Slowly but surely more and more land is being planted to Eucalyptus. More and more water is sucked out of the Earth, to create wood fibre, which is exported to destinations like Japan and Europe, at a fraction of its true cost. A "privileged" minority appears to benefit from the sale of timber to Mondi and Sappi, but for the vast majority of members of traditional communities it means the end to the natural resources upon which they relied for survival. Grazing for cattle and goats has disappeared under the spreading plantations. The loss of surface water has ruined prospects of growing food crops and people's traditional lifestyle has been left in tatters. Where will these people go? Well, some may move to informal settlements around towns in the area, but many more have moved to the squatter-cities around Durban. Here the people can taste the benefits of "civilised society". Breathe the rotten air, polluted by factories, freeways and landfill sites! Roam the streets, scratching in waste-bins and sniff glue for pleasure! Become economically active in the lucrative crime and prostitution industry! Give their kids Coca-Cola and GE chips for lunch. Thank you SAPPI, thank you Mondi for your great contribution to the Reconstruction and Development of South Africa! It must be admitted that there are other culprits. South Africa's Department of Water Affairs and Forestry has failed to recognise the monstrous problems arising from the proliferation of so-called woodlots, using nice-sounding names like "community forestry " which is hardly the case. December 1999.
Just poetry and emotion? The expansion of the tree plantation model in South Africa has given place to a heated debate. Philip Owen, from SAWAC (South African Water Crisis), as well as several other concerned people, have repeatedly argued that the plantations scheme is detrimental to grassland and water conservation, thus negative with regard to rural communities. Last month Philip received a letter as a response to some comments he had made on an article entitled "Timber Farmers Praise Paper Giant", related to a tree plantation project by SAPPI -called Project Grow- in Kwa-Zulu Natal, which was published in The Citizen on November 18th 1999. Among other things, the reply stated that plantations do not make the land useless for growing vegetables, and that cattle grazing is to be seen in the project area. According to the author of the letter, only incomes from sugar farming can exceed those obtained from tree planting in the region. "What is needed are science-based practical solutions for practical problems, not poetry and emotion!" concluded the letter. This is the core of Philip's answer, which counters such arguments: "I will go visit the area concerned. I would like to speak to the tribal authorities. Finances allowing, I will visit them again ten years down the line, I will visit them again twenty years down the line, I will visit them again thirty years down the line, and I will see if my fears are justified. If Mpumalanga is anything to judge by, well, .... You can not argue, that animals find little nourishment under plantations. I saw the wild horses at Kaapsehoop the other day, the way their grazing areas have been affected by plantations in the area they are forced to graze next to the road. I would like people to realize that the "derelict land" referred to in the article has value, and properly looked after and cared for, can provide abundantly. When you talk about plantations and sugar being the industries of "highest financial returns", for whom do you mean? I believe the plantation model is wrong for South Africa. I will try to enforce a moratorium on new plantations, and in the face of reasonable serious 'opposition', will use any means at my disposal. For myself, I don't need studies and books to be convinced as to the negative effects of tree farming. I just need to take a walk up the mountain." January 2000.
Grassland ecosystem destruction by tree plantations South Africa boosts an area of 1.5 million hectares of tree plantations, mostly composed of eucalyptus and pine trees, as well as a lesser area of Australian wattle. These plantations have resulted in an important number of social and environmental impacts, most of which were highlighted during a symposium held in June 2000 in Pietermaritzburg, organized by the local NGO coalition Timberwatch. Even though conservation efforts worldwide
have been mostly focused on tropical ecosystems, it is to be underscored
that grasslands, typical of the temperate areas, present high levels
of biodiversity and endemism. South Africa is therefore an exception to the rule (as are Argentina and Uruguay), in the sense that its main problem is not deforestation but afforestation. South Africa is not "planting forests" - as foresters like to portray their large-scale tree planting activities - but destroying grasslands that have evolved through millions of years. Such destruction is taking place in two ways: 1) Through large-scale monoculture tree plantations and 2) Through the invasion of alien tree species into the grasslands. In South Africa, tree plantations are implemented on a very large scale, and are concentrated in the higher rainfall areas of the provinces of Kwazulu-Natal and Mpumalanga. Few plant species are able to survive under the tree canopy and therefore few animal species are able to find food in them. At the same time, other conditions for survival and reproduction of wildlife become so modified by plantations, that many animals are forced to migrate in order to survive. Some of them are able to adapt to different environments and therefore manage to survive, though in smaller numbers. Others don't find the necessary conditions and disappear. Moreover, fire frequency is reduced in any natural grassland that may remain among plantations. Since the grasslands and their associated fauna are fire-adapted, regular burning is essential for maintaining their full biotic diversity. As stated above, South Africa has 1.5 million hectares of plantations. Additionally, it has 1.6 million hectares of what local people call "jungle gum" and "jungle wattle". These "jungles" consist of a number of alien tree species which have invaded the grasslands and are creating havoc throughout the country. Although the predominant species gives them their name ("gum" is the generic term used for eucalyptus and "wattle" for several species of Australian acacia, notably Acacia mearnsii and A. dealbata), they are composed of a large number of invasive species, which are spreading in both grasslands and forest (which is very limited in extent in Southern Africa). Eucalyptus globulus and E. grandis (from Australia), Pinus patula and P. elliottii (from Mexico and the US respectively), Melia azedarach (from Asia), Solanum mauritianum and Lantana camara (from temperate South America), Jacaranda mimosifolia (from subtropical South America) and many others are occupying increasing areas and negatively affecting plant and animal diversity, as well as causing a reduction in the availability of water in rivers and streams. Invasion of habitats by alien plants is one of the causes of the extinction of native species. Some plant species have developed the capacity to adapt to new sites and to displace the original vegetation cover. This phenomenon has been widely recorded and it is known as "bioinvasion". Needless to say that invasive species constitute a threat for biodiversity at the local and regional level, since the spread of newcomers alters the richness and abundance of the flora and fauna of the original ecosystem. All the above problems are the result of the introduction of tree species to a country dominated by grasslands. Such mistake could be understandable in the past, but today - when the world has declared its concern over biodiversity loss and governments have made commitments to address the problem - it becomes unforgivable. In South Africa, much of the blame lies within forestry companies and the forestry professional community. Will grasslands be saved or will the whole country become a "jungle"? Given the vested interests at stake, much will depend on the work of civil society organizations and the government to put a halt to the spread of plantations and to find viable solutions to the already created problems. June 2000.
Quo vadis FSC? Certification of monoculture timber plantations as "sustainably managed forests" by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) makes an absolute mockery of the concept of sustainable environment and ecosystem management. In recent years vast tracts of industrial tree plantations in South Africa and many other countries, have been given the FSC stamp of approval. How can this be possible? The natural vegetation in the areas where these plantations have been established was originally highly bio-diverse grassland or woodland. After conversion to plantations, these areas stand little chance, if any, of being able to revert to the natural climax vegetation type. The environment is subjected to a terrifying range of harmful impacts, starting with the construction of primitive roads and ending with huge, computerised mechanical harvesters compacting the soil, thereby destroying its function. In between these environmentally catastrophic events, the land and its rightful inhabitants are subjected to an extensive suite of chemical, physical, biological and demographic alterations to their natural state. This all as part of the process that is imposed to meet the demands of first world greed for wood-fibre products: 1 - As a first step, the natural vegetation
is either bulldozed or killed with herbicides to prevent competition
with alien plantation trees for water, light and nutrients. Large-scale timber plantations destroy whole ecosystems and rural economies. For some strange reason this calamity is virtually ignored by governments and research institutions. The onus should be on an organisation like FSC to insist that thorough, impartial research is conducted before certification can be considered. In place of the natural landscape is a new visage dominated by fake forests. Fake not only in that their owners pretend that they can substitute meaningfully for the real thing, but truly fake in terms of how their economic benefits are exaggerated and inflated at the local level. There is no doubt that a consumer commodity like paper, or pressboard, has great value in modern society. What is not acceptable is that the rate of consumption of paper products is increasing whilst the living standards of poor communities where the timber is produced do not. The growth of the throwaway culture of so-called developed countries has a direct correlation to the eroding natural environment, and standards of living in the countries that have been colonised by the tree plantations of the multinational corporations concerned. The FSC must take a large share of the responsibility
for this social and environmental injustice.
The sad figures of employment generated by plantation companies One of the most commonly used arguments by those promoting large scale monoculture tree plantations is that they generate employment. As we will see from the following examples, such arguments are false. Let us look at the multinational company Aracruz Celulose, based in Brazil. Presently the company owns 144,000 hectares of eucalyptus plantations in the States of Espirito Santo and Bahia. According to the data to be found in its own web page ( www.aracruz.com.br ) if we add up the hectares of plantations and the hectares of native forest, this company owns a total of 210,000 hectares of land. It also states in its web page that it has a total of 4,643 employees (of which 1.689 are direct and 2,954 permanently indirect). Using the rule of three, we find that this company occupies 3.2 employees for every 100 hectares of plantations it owns. If we were to include the total land belonging to Aracruz, the statistic is even sadder: 2.2 employees for each 100 hectares of land. However, this figure is misleading in regard to employment generated at rural level, as it includes employees in the pulp mill and another series of employees in areas far from the plantations. Therefore, at rural level, it employs far fewer people. Let us look at another example from a neighbouring country, Uruguay. The multinational company Weyerhaeuser from the United States owns a total of 128,000 hectares of land in this country, of which 71,000 are planted with trees. According to declarations to the press by the company's Vice-President, "today some 600 people are linked to the company. A total of 130 people work directly for the company." Let us go back to the figures: the company generates 0.18 jobs per 100 hectares planted. If we were to use the figure of the total lands belonging to the multinational company, this would drop to 0.10 jobs per 100 hectares. Contrary to the case of Aracruz, in this case the company does not carry out any industrial transformation, better reflecting the scant level of employment generated by tree plantations. It is interesting to note that the Uruguayan Forestry Department maintains in its advertising, that this activity generates 3.3 jobs per 100 hectares. As we do not think that the company is hiding employees, the conclusion is clear: the Forestry Department is not telling the truth. Let us now see a South African example: the multinational company MONDI, which is also one of the main shareholders of Aracruz Celulose. This company has a total of 638,000 hectares of land. Of this total, 407,000 hectares are plantations. In turn the company - again according to data in its web site - has 4,500 employees. Once again the results we obtain regarding employment generated by these multinational companies are low: in the case of MONDI, it is 1.1 employee per 100 planted hectares. If we consider the total hectares belonging to MONDI, the figure drops to 0.7 jobs per 100 hectares. And this in spite of the fact that MONDI also includes the figures of employees in its industrial sector, which shows a situation similar to that of Aracruz regarding the scarce generation of rural employment. To this should be added the low quality of the jobs generated by these companies at the rural level, with low salaries, poor conditions of housing, food and social security, abusive sub-hiring systems, temporary jobs, etc. Prospects look even worse with the increasing mechanisation of plantation and harvest, always resulting in a decreasing number of jobs. Summing up, although there may be some exceptions to the rule, in practice it may be seen that plantation companies do not fulfil their promises of generating employment and, on the contrary, make the situation even worse than it was before their arrival, increasing rural to urban migration. September 2001.
Where impact of plantations on water is accepted as fact The establishment of large-scale fast growing
tree monocrops is always accompanied by a debate on the issue of water.
The vast majority of forestry experts will deny that plantations impact
on water, usually using the lack of scientific studies as an argument
to counter local peoples' allegations that plantations deplete water
resources. As the majority of South Africa's commercial timber plantations have been established in the prime water catchments of the region this has had severe consequences on the available water supply and more specifically on downstream users. Concerns over the impact of these commercial tree plantations on existing water supplies were first articulated in the early 20th century. The extent and public nature of the discourse eventually led to the introduction of a state sponsored hydrological research programme in 1936. Despite the growing body of evidence that illustrated quite clearly that water supplies declined in the presence of commercially grown tree plantations it was only in 1972 that a regulatory regime (Afforestation Permit System) was introduced. The state now sought to regulate the planting of commercial tree plantations through the issuing of permits to mitigate the deleterious impact such plantings have on water supplies. In subsequent years the inherent shortcomings of the 1972 regulatory regime became increasingly apparent. Although a series of recommendations based on the growing body of evidence gathered from additional research had been introduced, these resulted in few substantial changes. It was only during the rapidly evolving and changing political environment of the 1990s that more significant changes were introduced to regulate the tree-growing sector. The underlying motive for the state intervening in the sector was to ensure that South Africa's scarce water supplies were utilised more equitably, effectively and efficiently. Any activities, including tree-growing, that resulted in the reduction of water supplies were to be registered as Stream Flow Reduction activities and would have to apply for a permit to continue pursuing such activities. Additional concerns such as the impact of commercial tree-growing on biodiversity, ecological sustainability, and aesthetics were also taken into consideration. Although the results of the hydrological research used to establish the legislative framework for tree-growing activities have often been queried, any disputes that have arisen have focused more on the alleged quantities of water consumed by the industry rather than the fact that commercial tree plantations are major users of water and especially groundwater. The essence of the 'plantation-water' debate in South Africa therefore is more about an industry arguing for its economic right to compete for a scarce resource, namely water, rather than a denial by the industry that commercial tree plantations consume a significant amount of water. In other words its is an accepted 'fact' rather than a 'fallacy'. Forestry experts and governments in other countries where large-scale fast growing tree plantations and being promoted and implemented should follow the example of South Africa instead of continuing to deny what is increasingly obvious: that these plantations deplete water resources. September 2001.
Tree plantations' impacts on bird populations South Africa (including South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland)) has been blessed with 40 or so endemic bird species. Twelve of these are endemic to the Grassland Biome, while nine of those are listed as globally threatened or near threatened by BirdLife International. Rudd's Lark is the only species occurring in South Africa to be listed as Critically Threatened on a global scale. All the endemic grassland birds listed above occur in the high altitude, moist grassland of the eastern escarpment. These grasslands have been listed as an Endemic Bird Area by BirdLife International, i.e. an area containing at least two species whose global distribution falls within an area smaller than 50 000 km2. Other threatened birds that occur in this area include Blue Swallow, Blue Crane, Wattled Crane - all listed as globally threatened - and Grey Crowned Crane which is now listed as Nationally Threatened. Most South African tree plantations have been planted in what were formerly high altitude, moist grasslands containing all or many of the species mentioned above. This has had a devastating effect on the bird life of these areas. A glance at the distribution maps in the Southern African Bird Atlas and any field guide to southern African birds for Rudd's Lark, for example, indicates how the range of this species has become fragmented. Blue Swallows, often cited as proof of the Timber Industry's concern for the environment, is now down to between 40 and 50 pairs left breeding in South Africa - less than 10% of the original population. The near extinction of this species in South Africa has been laid almost solely at the door of the Timber Industry. A study using Southern African Bird Atlas Data, illustrated the effect that tree plantations had on these species in particular and bird life in general. The grassland birds themselves became locally extinct in heavily planted areas. Even in relatively lightly planted areas there was a negative impact on bird diversity in general. Unpublished data collected in the grasslands of southern Mpumalanga indicates that the diversity of bird species in the near pristine grasslands around Wakkerstroom is around 170 species/km2. As one nears the intensely farmed areas around Amersfoort (mainly maize farming) the bird diversity drops to around 120 species/km2. In the areas around Panbult which have been heavily planted to trees the density drops to around 90 species/km2. Perhaps more significantly the composition of the bird communities changes from one dominated by larks, pipits and cisticolas to one dominated by doves and canaries. The above information clearly shows that plantation forestry in South Africa is having a major impact on the country's rich biodiversity, resulting from the substitution of native grasslands with tree crops. Although this article focuses on birds, the impacts are much more far reaching, including threats to most grassland-related flora and fauna - in a country where grasslands are one of the most important ecosystems. South African corporations are not "planting forests" - as they like to portray themselves - they are destroying the country's biodiversity, highly dependent on its native grasslands. February 2002.
FAO forest definition a threat to biodiversity Wally Menne, a member of the South African Timberwatch Coalition, sent the following message to Magnus Grylle of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO): "The information given [by the FAO] in respect of the total area covered by forest in South Africa is misleading as there are probably more than 3 million hectares of alien monoculture industrial timber plantations and thickets included in your total of 8.9 million ha. In fact, a more accurate figure for actual forest would be 4.5 million ha. Industrial timber plantations are a temporary crop with rotations of 7-20 years and an average of about 10. They destroy indigenous culture and biodiversity, displace communities, and irreversibly degrade the land. It is dishonest to pretend that they are forests." Magnus Grylle answered: "Thank you for your input. We are of course much aware of the plantations in South Africa. For the global accounting, we include them in the term "Forest" which has, given the context, a precise definition. See: http://www.fao.org/forestry/fo/fra/index.jsp and http://www.fao.org/forestry/fo/fra/defin.jsp?lang_id=1&parent=978 This definition does not take into account the quality (which can be perceived very differently depending on the point of view). It is simply a gross value for "areas with trees", if using a very loose explanation. This gross value can be used as is, for instance for carbon balance calculations, or be broken down for more specialised analysis. Themes for these more specialized analyses can be "naturalness", "wood supply capacity", or any other. For each purpose, the overall Forest could be broken down into more precise categories. What to call the categories is up to the analyst. I hope this clarifies our position. Forest
plantations are areas with trees, and therefore a (kind of) forest. It seems that according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), even when every last patch of forest has been destroyed, there will be nothing to worry about, as long as there were timber plantations to take their place. It does not even appear to matter that the areas previously covered by forest are left to degrade into wastelands of alien weeds. It also does not matter that vast areas of land that were formerly grasslands, wetlands, pastures and food farms are converted into industrial timber plantations. After all, what is important is that there should be sufficient trees on the earth, to be able to show the plebs and the politicians that nothing has changed; that there are still the same areas of 'forest', 'deforestation' has slowed right down (don't tell people that there is very little left to de-forest). In fact, in many parts of the world there is an increase in forest cover! In South Africa there is a growing uneasiness with the simplistic view of forests taken by the FAO. Our forests are amongst the most complex and diverse in the world - this in spite of their historical abuse at the hands of human settlers. The forests that have survived are those in more remote areas, where human pressure has been in balance with their capacity to regenerate. But this is changing fast as local population pressure combined with demand for resources from first world nations starts to mount. Paradoxically, the timber plantations that were expected to be the saviour of South Africa's forests (by providing alternative sources of timber to local consumers and taking pressure off indigenous species) have become the greatest threat to biodiversity in this country. This is not to say that timber plantations do not play an important role in the local economy. There is legitimate cause for the cultivation of exotic tree species in South Africa, and it can be argued that they have played a role in preventing the further exploitation of our forest resources. This is all very well in the context of meeting local demand for timber products, but what has happened is that production has expanded to a level far above local demand. Recent figures show that exports of timber plantation products (mostly raw logs, chips and pulp) are now more or less on a par with local consumption (mostly end products such as construction timber, furniture, paper and board). The ways in which plantations have contributed to the degeneration of the natural environment are many and complex. Some negative impacts on biodiversity are only felt much later, and then quite far away from the event that caused the impact. So-called downstream impacts are usually ignored when assessing environmental costs, yet they can accumulatively cause major devastation in natural ecosystems. The Dukuduku Forest, which is part of the Greater St Lucia Wetland Park World Heritage Site, is a case in point. An estimated 30,000 people settled in the forest between 1990 and 2000, at the same time as timber companies were aggressively expanding their interests in the area. Not only were they buying up farms that previously engaged in varied agricultural activities, and combining them into large timber estates, but there was a concerted drive to establish 'woodlots' in communally owned tribal lands nearby. Both of these ways of increasing the supplies of timber for their hungry pulp and paper mills, led to the displacement of thousands of farm workers and rural poor. To make matters worse, the timber companies embarked on 'rationalisation' programmes that resulted in the retrenchment of thousands of plantation workers. In a single day, SAPPI retrenched more than 600 workers at their Kwa-mbonambi operation. Permanent workers were replaced with contractors, who could employ people on a temporary basis without having to provide normal employment benefits. Many illegal immigrants from countries such as Mozambique were attracted to this kind of employment, as it was possible to get money to take back to their families without questions being asked. A combination of all of the above actions created a situation where poor contract workers (paid about 1 US dollar a day), were left with little choice but to make their homes inside the forest, and to supplement their meagre income by cutting down or burning the forest to open up areas where they could grow food or Cannabis. The more easily measured direct impacts of timber plantations are also often disregarded, especially in the case of community land, where the companies are effectively obtaining the free use of land, without any of the responsibilities associated with ownership. Loss of grassland and wetland vegetation to plantations leads to the loss of grazing for cattle and sheep. Associated with this loss is the negative effect of fast growing plantations on the water table. Sources of water such as streams, springs and seasonal pans often disappear after plantations are established. Not only does this affect people and their livestock, but it also has serious implications for the natural species diversity of the area. As wetland areas dry out, wetland species become locally extinct. There are many areas that have not been thoroughly surveyed, yet are being transformed before this can happen. It is quite possible that species that have not been recorded are being lost without our knowledge. Displacement of people from their land creates a situation where alternatives must be found. In the same period that plantations have spread through rural areas, there has been a marked increase in the number of people leaving their rural homes to try to find work in the cities, and living wherever they can find vacant land to erect a temporary home. For many who were not prepared to give up their traditional lifestyle, it has meant having to take their livestock into areas where they can browse rather than graze, and this usually means sensitive riparian zones along rivers and streams. To get to water to drink, cattle open up paths on steep banks, which in turn lead to soil erosion problems. The indirect effects of plantations on nearby natural areas has never been properly researched and quantified. Perhaps the FAO will consider providing the funds to do this research. Direct impacts of timber plantations on biodiversity could fill several volumes, but available space and time mean that only the major ones can be included here. The most obvious and possibly the worst effect of plantations has been their tendency to spread beyond the area where they were originally planted, or to re-appear in areas where plantations were discontinued. The invasive tendency of exotic tree plantation species has had devastating effects on vast areas of this country. The worst is the Australian Black Wattle (Acacia mearnsii), but Eucalyptus species and hybrids have also made a major contribution to the problem. Although there are government-coordinated programs to eradicate alien trees, especially in sensitive catchments, the damage to biodiversity has already been done. Herbicide sprays and other applications form a substantial part of the process used, and it is not properly understood what the effects of the use of these chemicals will be on native species. It has been reported that these efforts have failed in some areas due to poor methods or management as well as inadequate follow-up. Emerging from the above is a picture of timber plantations causing both direct and indirect damage to the natural environment. By extension, this damage must extend to a substantial loss of biodiversity. Managed plantations in this country cover an area greater than 1,7 million ha. And most of these have been established on species diverse grasslands and wetlands. It has been estimated that land that has been invaded by alien tree species, or left unmanaged after being used for plantations, amounts to more than 1,5 million ha, mainly in grassland areas, but also significantly in wetlands and riverine areas. Is it right to call these artificial impositions
on the landscape 'forests'? No matter what arguments are presented by
the FAO, it is clearly a problem to make the inference that tree plantations
are a "kind of forest". By the same token it could be claimed
that locusts are a 'kind of bird' or that cornfields are a 'kind of
Prairie'. Clearly this is ludicrous to say the least, so why is the
FAO determined to obfuscate the true nature of timber plantations? Coupled with the neo-colonialist farce is the perceived need to maintain 'standards' in the first world. It makes so much sense when you can call timber products from industrial plantations 'products of sustainably managed forests'! Thank you very much, developed nations of the North - you can keep your euphemisms and your plantations. We want our grasslands and our forests. By: Wally Menne. March 2002. |
 |
|||
|
|||
|
Go to Home Page
World Rainforest Movement
Maldonado 1858 - 11200 Montevideo - Uruguay
tel: 598 2 413 2989 / fax: 598 2 410 0985
wrm@wrm.org.uy
