Tree Plantations: Impacts and Struggles
World Rainforest Movement

back to index

About this book

This book includes a selection of articles published in the World Rainforest Movement's (WRM) Bulletin on the issue of industrial tree plantations. Given that the aim of most monoculture tree plantations is to produce wood pulp, we have also included articles related to the pulp and paper industry. In many tropical countries, tree and oil palm plantations have similar impacts --which result in similar struggles-- and we have therefore also included articles on oil palm plantations. Finally, given the strong support that carbon sink tree plantations are receiving from governments and intergovernmental agencies , we have also included articles dealing with that issue.

The level of detail and analysis greatly varies from article to article due to the bulletin's character, which aims at being a useful tool both to people and organizations working at the local level and to those who work at the international level. In spite of that, we decided not to omit any article, in the belief that all of them can help to raise awareness on an issue such as this, which is still unclear to many people.

The authorship of the book is shared by WRM's International Secretariat and by the numerous people and organizations which either sent us articles or relevant information to produce them. Responsibility over the mistakes that might have been made is exclusively ours.

Regardless of the authorship of the book or the individual articles, the true protagonists are the many thousands of people who suffer from and organize opposition to this inequitable and unsustainable forestry model, which the articles try to reflect. To all of them, our most sincere homage.

Tree plantations

The need to raise awareness on the true character of tree plantations

One of the main reasons which explains why large-scale industrial tree plantations can be promoted at the global level while they are being strongly opposed at the local level, is the manipulation of concepts and information to feed the uninformed public. Trees -any trees- are presented as sinonimous to forests and forests are rightly perceived by most people as good and necessary to humanity. The fact that plantations have nothing in common with forests is not that easy to be understood by the general -particularly the urban- public.

On the contrary, local people can easily see the difference. Shortly after large-scale tree monocrops are planted, they begin to perceive -and suffer- that difference. Wildlife begins to become scarce in the area and almost inexistent within the boundaries of the plantations. Changes in the hydrologic cycle leads to water scarcity and in some cases also to over-flooding after heavy rains. Useful plants disappear. Water courses are damaged through increased siltation due to soil erosion originating in the plantations. Plantation management results in chemical pollution due to the widespread use of agrochemicals. Such changes have strong implications for local peoples’ livelihoods. Wild animals, fish, mushrooms, fruit, honey, vegetables, form an important part of their diet. Water security is basic for their agricultural and animal husbandry activities. The forest provides fodder, firewood, medicines, wood for housing, grasses for thatching, fibres and many other products and services. Plantations do not provide any of those and, to make matters worse, deprive people from most of the available agricultural land, which is taken over by one large company.

However, plantations are being promoted throughout the world as "planted forests". As if a forest, in its complexity of interactions involving people, energy, climate, soil, water and biodiversity, could be planted. Sooner or later, people begin to perceive that plantations are not "forests" and plantation companies then resort to a different set of arguments, trying to convince people that plantations are good, even accepting they are not forests. One of the more widely used arguments is that which states that "plantations help to alleviate pressure on native forests", by providing goods that would otherwise be obtained from forests. This argument sounds appealing, particularly to the increasing number of people concerned about deforestation . . . only that it is not true.

All plantations in tropical countries have directly or indirectly resulted in increased destruction of native forests. Most plantation companies clear the existing forest to make way for their tree crops. On the other hand, fast-growth tree monocrops are mostly oriented to the pulp industry and therefore do not alleviate any pressure from the logging of tropical timber for the sawnwood and plywood industry. Additionally, many pulp and paper companies which implement plantations to feed their pulpmills also use wood from tropical forests, either prior to the moment when the plantations mature or simultaneously use wood from the forest and from plantations.

As each argument falls apart, the companies’ hired "experts" invent another one, trying to make this unsustainable forestry model acceptable by different audiences. For example, that plantations create employment. The fact that plantations destroy more jobs than the ones they create and that the quality of employment they provide is dismal seems to be irrelevant to such "experts". Or that plantations are necessary to supply an increasing demand for paper in an increasingly literate world. This hides the fact that some 40% of the paper produced ends in packaging and wrapping, as well as the fact that pulp-exporting Southern countries with extensive plantations (such as Indonesia, Brazil, South Africa or Chile) consume 10 times less paper than industrial countries.

The inventive of these "experts" to prove the impossible seems to be inexhaustible. The truth is that plantations are simply tree crops aimed at ensuring the future supply of the pulp and paper industry once its traditional resource base -native forests- becomes depleted. As with any other industry, its purpose is to produce, and sell, and make a profit. The difference is that this industry -which is in fact one of the most destructive and polluting in the world- tries to portray its tree plantations, as a "greening the earth" operation. Trees are green . . . and so is the American dollar, which is the only colour they are interested in.

Plantations are not forests

The expansion of tree monocultures, especially in the South, is favoured by the combination of inexpensive land, low labour costs, fast tree-growth, subsidies, support from international "aid" agencies and multilateral development banks, technology provided by northern suppliers and advice by northern consultancies.

Plantations are not forests. Plantations are uniform agroecosystems that substitute natural ecosystems and their biodiversity, either in natural forests (e.g.: Chile, Brazil, Indonesia) or in grasslands (e.g.: Uruguay, South Africa). When natural ecosystems are substituted by large-scale tree plantations they usually result in negative environmental and social impacts: decrease in water production, modifications in the structure and composition of soils, alteration in the abundance and richness of flora and fauna, encroachment on indigenous peoples' forests, eviction of peasants and indigenous peoples from their lands, loss of livelihoods.

Pulpwood plantations

Industrial tree plantations occupy more than 100 million hectares worldwide. This production model is not based upon the material or spiritual needs of local people, neither aimed to favour them or their environment. Their goal is to provide the global paper industry with cheap raw material –mainly from eucalyptus- to assure the present overconsumption of paper and paper products, particularly in the North. Already 29% of the fiber used in the paper industry comes from fast-growing plantations and this figure is increasing.

Local people and social organizations from Brazil to Hawaii and from Spain to Congo have organized against this model. Nevertheless we need to be aware of some difficulties: generalized public opinion that planting trees is a good thing for the environment and for the preservation of natural forests, increase of paper consumption shown as associated to education and literacy in underdeveloped countries, lack of serious environmental impact assessments, proposal of alternatives to the dominant model, etc.

Timber plantations

The production scheme and consequences of timber plantations -pine, teak or other species- are similar to those of pulpwood plantations, with some differences in management, since they aim at the production of timber.

Oil palm plantations

Among non-timber plantations, oil palm is especially important. Global consumption of palm oil products increased 32% in the last five years. In Malaysia -the major palm oil exporter in the world- and in Indonesia, natural forests are being felled or set on fire to clear land for these plantations. Peasants are deprived of their lands and resources. Oil palm companies were responsible for fires that destroyed 80,000 hectares of forests in Indonesia this year. Plantations are expanding in Ivory Coast, Brazil, Colombia, Honduras, Ecuador and other countries with similar negative environmental impacts.

Carbon sink plantations

Even if OECD countries are responsible for 77% of the world fossil fuel-related emissions of CO2 -whose increasing concentration in the atmosphere is one of the main causes of global warming- they advocate for a "solution" that consists on using the photosynthetic activity of tree leaves to capture CO2 and retain carbon in the wood. These so-called "carbon sinks" are fast-growing species' plantations to be installed in the South. The model is simple: the North will continue emiting CO2 to the atmosphere and the South will be responsible of capturing it throught the new installed "forest cover". They call it "joint implementation" and is the most recent argument used by plantation promoters to justify their activity. According to one calculation, 300 million hectares of fast-growing trees are required to absorb the annual global emissions of CO2 if the present rate of emissions continues, as is expected. There’s no scientific evidence of their efficiency, since their capacity to capture CO2 can be much influenced by climate change.

The above named four types of plantations have commonalities:

- All of them are large-scale

- They are all monocultures that correspond to an industrial scheme, aimed at the production of an export good or service obtained at low cost in a Southern country

- They result in strong negative social and environmental impacts

- Their implementation is the result of top-down oriented decisions that see reality only at a global scale and are focused mainly -if not exclusively- on the obtention of economic benefit

- Local people and national societies are ignored at decision-making levels. They are just used to provide cheap labour force and their land and related resources are directly or indirectly appropriated by powerful national or foreign agents

The Montevideo Declaration. June 1998

-A call for action to defend forests and people against large-scale tree monocrops

In June 1998, citizens of 14 countries around the world gathered in Montevideo, Uruguay out of urgent concern at the recent and accelerating invasion of millions of hectares of land and forests by pulpwood, oil palm, rubber and other industrial tree plantations.

Such plantations have little in common with forests. Consisting of thousands or even millions of trees of the same species, bred for rapid growth, uniformity and high yield of raw material and planted in even-aged stands, they require intensive preparation of the soil, fertilisation, planting with regular spacing, selection of seedlings, mechanical or chemical weeding, use of pesticides, thinning, and mechanized harvesting.

As people from six continents engaged in fighting such industrial monocultures and near-monocultures have testified, the resulting radical conversion of the landscape, together with the disruption of social and natural systems, can threaten the welfare and even survival of local communities.

The following are the most frequently cited environmental impacts:

* reduced soil fertility

* increased erosion and compaction of the soil

* loss of natural biodiversity

* reduced groundwater reserves and stream-flow

* increase in fires and fire risks

These effects frequently extend far outside plantation boundaries, with nearby or downstream areas being affected by erosion, desiccation and radical, sometimes irreversible changes in the local flora and fauna. All these impacts damage local peoples' lives and livelihoods.

Industrial tree plantations have in many cases been preceded by firing or clearcutting of native forests and have therefore become a new and major cause of deforestation. In agricultural areas, industrial tree plantations have undermined food security by usurping productive cropland and pastures, thus contributing to local poverty. In many cases they have resulted in forced displacement or forced resettlement of local people, in widespread human rights abuses and in violation of local peoples' land rights. Nearly everywhere they have been established, industrial tree plantations have destroyed people's livelihoods in agriculture, fisheries, animal husbandry and gathering. The pitiful number of jobs they create --insecure, seasonal, badly paid frequently, dangerous, and susceptible to market cycles-- cannot compensate for the loss of employment that they cause.

Pulpwood plantations can be particularly huge. The scale of these plantations --most often of eucalyptus, pine or acacia-- is influenced by the immensity of the factories which process the trees they grow. A $1 billion pulp mill may produce a half million to a million tons of pulp a year and divert an entire river through its machines as it squats amid sixty thousand hectares or more of plantations. The cost of reengineering and simplifying landscapes in this way can be paid only through massive direct and indirect subsidies --including tax breaks, government handouts, infrastructure, research and suppression of labour organization-- captured through the exercise of political power. The power exercised by the industry locally tends to result in further subsidies, further expansion, political repression, hostility to democratic procedures, and contempt for local needs and landscapes.

The plantation industry is increasingly moving to the South, where cheap land, labour and water, fast tree growth, and loose environmental controls result in lower production costs. This encourages the current pattern of excessive and growing paper consumption in the North and parts of the South.

Assisting or underwriting the spread of industrial tree plantations is a set of supporting actors ranging from the World Bank and bilateral "aid" agencies to research institutions and university scientists. Money badly needed to support the development of local livelihood security (including the development of small-scale, locally-appropriate and environmentally-responsible paper production techniques using locally available raw materials) is directed into forestry research supporting the use of fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, biotechnology, cloning and a Green Revolution-like package of techniques which has proven to be detrimental to local environments and livelihoods. In the name of "development", other public monies are diverted to forestry consulting firms, pulping machinery manufacturers, and pulp and paper companies which are often also involved in logging native forests.

To counter growing resistance, the industry is attempting to "green" its image by presenting tree monocrops as "planted forests" and as carbon sinks. Although tree plantations have little in common with forests and although most of the carbon stored by plantations will be released to the atmosphere again within five to ten years, such myths are sometimes accepted by uninformed audiences.

In view of these concerns, we pledge our support to an international campaign to:

* support local peoples' rights and struggles against the invasion of their lands by these plantations

* encourage awareness of the negative social and environmental impacts of large-scale industrial monocrop tree plantations, and

* change the conditions which make such plantations possible.

We therefore commit ourselves to joining the movements opposed to such plantations --movements which have already achieved significant successes. We are confident that the struggle against the industrial forestry model will at the same time help enable local communities to implement local solutions to local problems --solutions which will simultaneously have positive impacts on the global environment, and whose continuing evolution we also pledge ourselves to support.

International discourse and on-the-ground reality

Since the 1992 Earth Summit, many trees have been felled to provide paper for the voluminous documents produced by a number of intergovernmental processes --including parallel expert meetings-- aimed at addressing the urgent problem of deforestation. Many solutions have since then been found ... on paper.

The real world is clearly going in another direction. Forest are set on fire to give way to "development" plans, including eucalyptus, oil palm, soya and other monocrops; forests are cleared to be substituted by cattle-raising; mangroves are disappearing to provide shrimp to mostly Northern consumers; tropical forests are being destroyed and polluted by oil exploration and mining; and forests are still being exploited for their valuable wood.

All the above problems --and more-- had already been highlighted by the World Rainforest Movement in its 1989 Penang Declaration: "The current social and economic policies and practices that lead to deforestation throughout the world in the name of development are directly responsible for the annihilation of the earth's forests, bringing poverty and misery to millions and threatening global ecosystems with collapse. Such policies and practices include: plantations, both for industrial forestry and for export crops, ranching schemes, dam projects, commercial logging, colonisation schemes, mining and industry, the dispossession of peasants and indigenous peoples, roads, pollution, tourism."

Nothing much seems to have changed or to be changing in spite of the seemingly concerned declarations of the governments of the world. Even worse, while forests are depleted mostly by greed, many of their hopes are based on the assumption that free trade will be the solution to the problem. While most governments --North and South-- either directly or indirectly continue degrading forests at home and/or abroad, the forest discussion seems to be going no-where.

In such a context, the World Rainforest Movement and Forests Monitor chose the second meeting of the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (Geneva, August 1998) to present the results of their joint research on the activities of Malaysian logging companies abroad. The report ("High Stakes: the need to control transnational logging companies, a Malaysian case study"), stresses that "Malaysian-based logging companies are far from unique in terms of the negative social and ecological impacts that they cause in some of the countries where they operate". However, the activities of Malaysian logging companies constitute a useful example of the impacts resulting from the liberalization process promoted by institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the World Trade Organization.

This report --which will be followed by another on forest destruction by Canadian mining companies abroad-- shows that transnational companies and international trade are not only not the solution, but they are in fact an important part of the problem. While the international governmental community continues to support the ideologised concept that an abstract "market" will solve most problems, the real market continues destroying forests and with them the people that live within. Until such approach changes, the protection of most forests will depend on the ongoing struggles of local peoples, supported by local and international citizens' organizations.