Tree Plantations: Impacts and Struggles
World Rainforest Movement

back to index

Tree plantations and international processes/institutions

Plantations and the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests

In 1995, the U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development established an Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF) to address a wide range of forest-related issues. The IPF produced a final report in early 1997 containing a set of 135 proposals for action, that governments have agreed to implement. This package of proposals was formally endorsed at the June 1997 UN General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) on the implementation of Agenda 21.

As a follow-up to the IPF, at UNGASS, governments established the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF) to promote implementation of the IPF proposals for action, to monitor such implementation; and to address matters left pending by the IPF. The first meeting of the IFF took place on 1-3 October 1997 in New York, and will be followed by three more meetings before reporting back to the CSD in the year 2000: August 1998, May 1999 and another one sometime later that year.

The IFF is now an extremely important forum, where governments talk about forests together. It is being assisted by the Inter-agency Task Force on Forests, integrated by: the Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO). the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the United Nations Department for Policy Coordination and Sustainable Development (DPCSD), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Bank. So the whole complex of the IFF is an important discusion forum among governments about forests.

The IPF and tree plantations

The IPF's proposals for action, whose implementation is now going to be promoted by the IFF, contain a number of contradictions as respects to plantations, which reflect the different interests at stake among the governments involved in the process. Some of them seem to wish to preserve native forests, others want to replace them by plantations; some wish to create extensive plantations, others want to simplify existing forests, converting them into something similar to plantations; some are interested in the continuing provision of raw material for the pulp industry, others are focused on plantations as carbon sinks. The result of the ensuing discussion, influenced by other actors such as industry, bilateral and multilateral agencies, NGOs, indigenous peoples' organizations, and others, has been a very confusing set of proposals. This confusion has also been influenced by the FAO's definitions, which includes plantations under the term "forests". Although the IPF's proposals for action do differentiate between natural forests and plantations, the terms used allow for confusion ("natural" forests and "forest" plantations) and therefore pave the way for them to be used as sinonyms, for the benefit of the promoters of plantations.

The first time plantations are mentioned is in paragraph 22, which says: "Both sustainably managed natural forests and forest plantations, as components of integrated land-use that takes account of environmental and socio-economic concerns, fulfil a valuable role in meeting the need for forest products, goods and services, as well as helping to conserve biological diversity and providing a reservoir for carbon. The costs, benefits and disbenefits of different types of forest management, including forest plantations, need to be appraised under different social, cultural, economic and ecological conditions. The role of forest plantations as an important element of sustainable forest management and as a complement to natural forests should be recognized."

That paragraph contains a number of conceptual errors:

1) Plantations are not forests

2) Plantations do not provide for most of the services provided by forests

3) Plantations do not help to conserve biological diversity

4) Plantations are not a durable reservoir of carbon

5) Plantations in many cases conspire against sustainable forest management, by replacing forests

6) Plantations are seldom a complement to natural forests.

At the same time, it contains another major contradiction in that it declares that "[T]he costs, benefits and disbenefits of different types of forest management, including forest plantations, need to be appraised under different social, cultural, economic and ecological conditions", but immediately recognizes (with no appraisal whatsoever) "[T]he role of forest plantations as an important element of sustainable forest management and as a complement to natural forests . . ."

The above paragraph is reinforced by paragraph 28, through which the "Panel urged countries:

(a) To assess long-term trends in their supply and demand for wood, and to consider actions to promote the sustainability of their wood supply and their means for meeting demand, with a special emphasis on investment in sustainable forest management and the strengthening of institutions for forest resource and forest plantations management;

(b) To recognize and enhance the role of forest plantations as an important element of sustainable forest management complementary to natural forests;

The above clearly shows a wood supply approach to forests. In spite of all the international processes which have taken place particularly after the Earth Summit, forests are here still being basically considered as wood producers. In that context, obviously plantations make sense, to ensure an ever increasing consumption of wood and wood products. However, they do not make sense from a social and environmental perspective, where local people and local environments suffer the impacts, either of "sustainable" logging or of plantations, and usually from both: the latter following the former.

Paragraph 43 states that in "some countries" [without specifying in which] plantations of fast-growing trees have had good and cost-effective results in terms of soil protection." Given that in many cases the opposite has been proven true, this should be brought to the attention of the IFF in order to avoid a wrong generalization of this type.

On the positive side, the document at least mentions that plantations should be implemented preferably with native species and should not replace natural forests. Paragraph 58 (b ii) urges "countries with low forest cover:

(ii) To plan and manage forest plantations, where appropriate, to enhance production and provision of goods and services, paying due attention to relevant social, cultural, economic and environmental considerations in the selection of species, areas and silviculture systems, preferring native species, where appropriate, and taking all practicable steps to avoid replacing natural ecosystems of high ecological and cultural values with forest plantations, particularly monocultures;"

We obviously strongly support the last part of the paragraph (avoiding the replacement of natural ecosystems by tree monocultures), but at the same time it raises some questions:

1) Why does this recommendation only apply to "countries with low forest cover"? Shouldn't all countries avoid replacing forests (whether with high ecological and cultural value or not) with plantations and shouldn't all not avoid monocultures?

2) Who is going to "plan and manage" those forest plantations": the local communities, the Forestry Department? Is the "provision of goods and services" aimed at the local community or at the international market? How are the decisions going to be made? What does "paying due attention" mean?

3) From a Western forestry science point of view, plantations of native species are seldom "appropriate", either because their wood production is slower, or because they don't have a market value, or because when planted in closed stands they tend to be affected by "pests and diseases" (animals and plants which make part of the local ecosystems). So "preferring native species, where appropriate" seems to be only wishful thinking, to appease environmentalists.

In sum, as respects to plantations, the IPF's proposals for action appear to be more a problem than a solution. However, there seems to be room for influencing their implementation and one of the campaign's main targets should be to generate awareness on the drawbacks of plantations, particularly the social and environmental effects that they have at the local level. The awareness-raising activities should obviously focus on IFF participants, but should at the same time aim at a much wider audience which will itself also influence decision-makers, both within and outside the IFF process.

Comments on the IPF's proposals for action on tree plantations

The IPFs proposals for action contain a number of items which refer to tree plantations, which the WRM believes should be further reflected upon by the IFF in view to their implementation. Paragraph 22 states that:

"Both sustainably managed natural forests and forest plantations, as components of integrated land-use that takes account of environmental and socio-economic concerns, fulfil a valuable role in meeting the need for forest products, goods and services, as well as helping to conserve biological diversity and providing a reservoir for carbon. The costs, benefits and disbenefits of different types of forest management, including forest plantations, need to be appraised under different social, cultural, economic and ecological conditions. The role of forest plantations as an important element of sustainable forest management and as a complement to natural forests should be recognized."

Few human productive activities are good or bad per se, and most impact on people and the environment. Depending on a number of issues, their advantages can in some cases outweigh their drawbacks, while they can be basically negative in others. The above paragraph clearly incorporates this approach by stating the important role that plantations can have, while taking into account "environmental and socio-economic concerns" and the need to appraise plantations "under different social, cultural, economic and ecological conditions."

The WRM believes that representative existing examples of plantations need to be appraised to determine how they benefit or disbenefit local populations, which type should be promoted in which situations, by whom they should be implemented, and how.

First, there are many types of tree plantations, ranging from agroforestry systems to large-scale industrial plantations. Some have been beneficial, while others have had strong negative impacts. Most of the negative impacts --on people and the environment-- have been documented in large-scale plantations: deforestation, displacement and loss of livelihoods of local peoples, erosion and nutrient depletion, biodiversity loss, water shortages, etc. On the other hand, positive impacts have been recorded in some agroforestry systems which have been carried out by local communities.

Tree plantations are therefore neither positive nor negative per se and their impact in one way or the other will depend --as paragraph 22 states-- on the "different social, cultural, economic and ecological conditions."

The IPF’s proposals for action contain another very important element in paragraph 58 (b ii), which also needs to be considered for implementation of these proposals:

"(ii) To plan and manage forest plantations, where appropriate, to enhance production and provision of goods and services, paying due attention to relevant social, cultural, economic and environmental considerations in the selection of species, areas and silviculture systems, preferring native species, where appropriate, and taking all practicable steps to avoid replacing natural ecosystems of high ecological and cultural values with forest plantations, particularly monocultures . . ."

The above is an important step forward in that it correctly addresses one type of destructive forestry model --large-scale exotic tree monocultures-- which in many cases have replaced "natural ecosystems of high ecological and cultural values with forest plantations, particularly monocultures." At the same time, this paragraph provides clear guidance on the steps that should be taken before implementing plantations:

- social, cultural, economic and environmental considerations should be addressed in the selection of species, areas and silviculture systems

- native species should be preferred

- monocultures of exotic species should be avoided.

The WRM believes that if these guidelines are taken into account, they will result in a radical change in the currently predominant plantation forestry model, based on a few exotic species (particularly eucalyptyus and pines), planted as large-scale monocultures, which are having dramatic negative impacts on local communities and on local environments.

The World Bank: a major actor

The World Bank has been and still is an active and influential promoter of industrial scale tree monocrops using different mechanisms. The first one is providing technical advice for forestry planning. The Bank has carried out dozens of forest sector plans for various countries, which include models on how to zone land and how should land be allocated for different uses, including particularly for plantations. This was a process that the Bank tried to institutionalize -as a global response to deforestation- through the Tropical Forestry Action Plan in the 1980's, which received very strong criticism, particularly from the World Rainforest Movement, which was actually created during that struggle. That is still one of the major ways through which the Bank influences and lays the ground for plantations.

The Bank also supports specific forestry projects. Some of these projects are now known under other names, such as national resource management projects, environmental projects and so on. But basically many of them have forestry and plantations as a focus. Between 1984 and 1994, the Bank lent 1.4 billion dollars to create 2.9 million hectares of plantations. Additionally, the proportion of money lent does not really reflect the scale of its influence. Many of its loans trigger other institutions into committing money into projects, because the Bank provides them with some kind of guarantee. This creates an attractive environment for other investors, so for every dollar that the Bank invests, many other dollars follow.

Apart from helping to establish industry around the plantations, the Bank also funds "social forestry programmes", which provide outsourcing for paper mills. An example of such a programme is in southern India, where eucalyptus plantations are promoted on farmers' land, leading to the displacement of many farm workers.

In terms of industrial scale tree monocrops for pulp, the Bank also funds --and has funded for decades-- so-called small holder nucleus estates, which are set up by and large to furnish the para-statal industries with tree crop material such as palm oil and so on. Billions of dollars have gone to Indonesia to promote these plantations and some of these are linked to the transmigration programmes, whereby the workers are relocated to the Outer Inslands -again financed by the World Bank- to furnish labour to these small holder nucleus estates (the nucleus is the industrial plantation). The small holders are then trapped into a near monopolistic relationship with the company to provide the tree crop products. When the Bank got criticised for actually supporting the export of labour to the Outer Islands, it subsequently invested most of the money in so-called second stage development. The agricultural model was failing on many of these ressettlement sites and so it encouraged the settlers to switch to tree crops, again as a way of providing material to the mills.

Plantations are also supported through agricultural sector loans in a whole range of kinds, included providing credit to agricultural banks. In Papua New Guinea, for example, all the coastal plantations are funded by the Multilateral Development Banks.

It is also necessary to bear in mind that the Bank influences or creates the conditions for promoting plantations through structural adjustment lending. The basic objectives of structural adjustment lending being to promote foreign direct investment, to create a better fiscal climate for overseas investments, and to promote an export-based economy. Guyana is an example where promotion of the forestry sector for export is now leading into plantation companies coming in as a natural follow up to logging. The loggers come in, log the forest saying that they are doing selective logging, but all along they actually admit that they are coming in to do oil palm plantations. That is something which is starting there, and that has come up very explicitly in the context of structural adjustment programmes.

The International Finance Corporation (IFC, part of the World Bank Group), invests directly in projects linked to plantations. Bahia Sul Celulose in Brazil, for instance, has the IFC as one of its shareholders, In Kenya, while the World Bank lent money to promote tree plantations, the IFC was investing money in the Kenyan pulp, paper and packaging industry.

The Global Environment Facility, which is a grant facility where the World Bank is the main implementing agency, has also provided money to set up plantations under the guise of carbon sinks, at least in Ecuador and Kenya.

The World Bank is therefore one of the major agents in the promotion of industrial-scale tree monocrops and much effort will need to be directed in order to make it introduce changes, not only into its forestry sector loans, but to the whole range of those of its activities which result in the substitution of native ecosystems (both forests and grasslands) by monoculture tree plantations.

ITTO moving to tree plantations?

B.C.Y Freezailah, executive director of the International Tropical Timber Organization compared in Tokyo sustainable management of tropical forests with tree plantations and concluded that tropical forestry will need to switch to tree plantations.

He stated that 'tropical timbers from natural forests are increasingly facing competition with timbers from temperate forests, against which tropical timber from sustainably managed natural forests is at a distinct disadvantage.' (the 'temperate forests' mentioned are in fact plantations in Chile and New Zealand.)

'It is quite clear -he said- that any further increase in the management costs for tropical timber due to rigid standards for the sustainable management of natural tropical forests, timber certification, and other costs will render it increasingly uncompetitive with the large quantities of commodity timbers becoming available especially from plantation-grown timbers from temperate countries.'

He thereby concluded that 'the future of tropical timber based on the sustainable management of natural tropical forests, is regretfully, more than bleak. It is in forest plantations that tropical countries have certain comparative advantages.' Therefore, tropical forestry must focus on 'wood production from intensively managed plantations of species selected for timber production.'

Contrary to what one might think, the above thinking is bad news for tropical forests. If logging is bad, plantations are even worse, both to people and to the environment. As an indigenous person from Sarawak, with years of experience fighting against logging companies, said: the logging companies come in, degrade our forest and leave; plantation companies come in, destroy the whole forest and stay!

Source: ITTO information from CIFOR 19, June 1998

Statement of the World Rainforest Movement for the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests meeting, New York, February 20th, 1997

The forest crisis: clear commitments and accountability

Deforestation and forest degradation -including conversion to industrial monoculture tree plantations- need to be addressed by all governments, since practically all governments hold some direct or indirect responsibility over the forest crisis. Although the issue has a global scope -both in causes and consequences- it needs to be addressed at a national level. Underlying and direct causes of deforestation and forest degradation vary from country to country as well as within countries and therefore efforts to stem these processes should be tailored to specific situations. In those cases in which some of the causes of deforestation and forest degradation lie outside the national boundaries, such situation should be made clear and the international community should assist in the removal of those causes.

As deforestation and forest degradation have global consequences, such as climate change and biodiversity loss, the international community -including governments, intergovernmental agencies and civil society organizations- must play a role to generate the necessary conditions to halt and revert such processes.

Northern governments have a role to play, both nationally and internationally. At the national level, some of them must commit themselves to halt current unsustainable logging practices in their own countries and -where relevant- to respect indigenous peoples’ rights; others must focus on the protection of remaining old-growth forests while others must change from industrial plantation-style management to ecoforestry practices.

At the international level, northern governments must commit themselves to the removal of a number of underlying causes of deforestation -particularly in the South- such as overconsumption of forest products and products produced in forest areas, unfair terms of trade, external debt issues, structural adjustment programs, etc. They must also avoid exporting their forestry practices to totally different southern environments and evaluate if their development aid in the forest and agricultural sectors favour the conservation of forests or if it contributes to further deforestation in the South.

Southern governments also have a major role to play and must commit themselves to the removal of national causes of deforestation and forest degradation. In some cases, they must ensure land security to peasants and indigenous peoples; in other cases they should make other energy sources available to local people depending exclusively on biomass fuel, in others they should not embark on development schemes which result in large-scale deforestation and forest degradation.

Both in North and South, civil society in general and forest people and forest-dependent people in particular, must play a major role in the elaboration of national, regional and local forest conservation and use plans, as well as in their implementation, monitoring and evaluation.

We urge the CSD to request all governments -from North and South- to make public commitments on the concrete steps they will take to halt deforestation and forest degradation at home and -where relevant- abroad. By this means, governments will become accountable to their own people and to the international community as a whole. All governments should also commit themselves to produce an annual report on the implementation of those commitments and to the national dissemination of such report, requesting comments from all interested parties, both on the commitments themselves and on their implementation. The CSD or another UN agency selected by the CSD -e.g. UNEP- would then produce a report collating the information received from governments and the information produced by non-governmental entities. In cases where the official and unofficial reports differ widely, the CSD -or the selected agency- would send a team of researchers to produce its own report, which would also be made publicly available.

Many of the world's forests have disappeared and many others are threatened, both in the North and in the South. There are no doubts about it. But until now, governments have been either unable or unwilling to find solutions, while local people -particularly indigenous people- are struggling to defend their forests and the NGO community has a long history in the same direction. As a concrete step to show a change of course, we request all governments to sign on ILO Convention 169 and the UN Draft Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. If governments are really willing to defend the forests, then they should make clear commitments, empower local people, recognise indigenous peoples’ rights to their forests and open up participation to all parties truly interested in the conservation of forests, particularly indigenous and forest-dependent people and the NGO community.