Plantations, poverty and power - Critical Information Collective

115
Nevertheless, Poore and Fries note that “There is evidence from the humid tropics, however, that young,
rapidly growing eucalypt plantations consume more water and regulate flow less well than natural
forests.” They also found that “Eucalypts are often planted where there have been no trees before. Under
these circumstances, the water yield of catchments is reduced and water-tables are drawn down. The
effect is greatest when trees are young and growing rapidly.” But rather than asking local people whether
they wanted industrial tree plantations on their land, or asking them how they would prefer to use their
land, Poore and Fries conclude that “Other tree genera would probably produce comparable effects.”595
According to the FAO, its seems, the need to plant fast growing trees is not negotiable.
Poore and Fries use a similar argument regarding the impact on soils. They note the impact of eucalyptus
plantations on soils, but conclude that other species are as bad and in any case fertilizer can be used:
“The cropping of eucalypts on short rotation, especially if the whole biomass is taken, leads to rapid
depletion of the reserve of nutrients in the soil. This is a direct consequence of their rapid growth; it
would apply in much the same way to any other highly productive crop, and is also closely associated
with length of rotation. There is some evidence that the removal of nutrients in comparable crops of pine
is greater. In each instance, calculations of nutrient cost should be made and fertilizer treatment decided
accordingly.”596
Interestingly, the report does differentiate between forests and plantations: “forests produce more
diversity than plantations of indigenous species, which in turn produce more diversity than plantations of
exotics.”597 This differentiation has not been taken up by the FAO, which still insists on describing
industrial tree plantations as “planted forests”.
Having documented the impacts of eucalyptus plantations, Poore and Fries conclude that,
“there can be no universal answer, either favourable or unfavourable, to the question of planting
eucalypts. Nor should there be any universal answer: each case should be examined on its individual
merits. It is difficult to see how further general research, however detailed, can alter this conclusion.”598
The authors recommend that before eucalyptus plantations are established, “careful and intelligent
assessment of the social and economic consequences” should be carried out. “This can probably best be
done,” they explain, “by a sympathetic examination of the ecological circumstances and needs of local
people, assisted by an understanding of the results of the fundamental research on water, nutrients, etc.
referred to in this article.”599
http://www.fao.org/docrep/r7750E/r7750e03.htm#are%20eucalypts%20ecologically%20harmful
595 “Are eucalypts ecologically harmful”, Unasylva, Vol. 38 No. 152, 1986.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/r7750E/r7750e03.htm#are%20eucalypts%20ecologically%20harmful
596 “Are eucalypts ecologically harmful”, Unasylva, Vol. 38 No. 152, 1986.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/r7750E/r7750e03.htm#are%20eucalypts%20ecologically%20harmful
597 “Are eucalypts ecologically harmful”, Unasylva, Vol. 38 No. 152, 1986.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/r7750E/r7750e03.htm#are%20eucalypts%20ecologically%20harmful
598 “Are eucalypts ecologically harmful”, Unasylva, Vol. 38 No. 152, 1986.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/r7750E/r7750e03.htm#are%20eucalypts%20ecologically%20harmful
599 “Are eucalypts ecologically harmful”, Unasylva, Vol. 38 No. 152, 1986.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/r7750E/r7750e03.htm#are%20eucalypts%20ecologically%20harmful