Plantations, poverty and power - Critical Information Collective

128
pesticides, fungicides and herbicides to prevent and control outbreaks of pests and diseases. Plantation
managers often also rely on chemical fertilizer to achieve faster growth rates.
FSC’s position on genetically modified trees is confusing. Criterion 6.8 is clear: “Use of genetically
modified organisms shall be prohibited.” But as with many of FSC’s standards, the problem is in the
implementation of the Criterion. Can an FSC certified company carry out laboratory research into GE
trees Can it carry out field trials in areas that are not certified Can it finance research into GE trees by
universities or other research institutions In October 2007, the US-based Stop GE Trees campaign wrote
to Heiko Liedeker, FSC’s then-director, with copies to all Board members, requesting clarification on
these questions. FSC declined to reply.638
Criterion 6.9 is almost completely meaningless in the context of large-scale industrial tree plantations
planted with exotic species: “The use of exotic species shall be carefully controlled and actively
monitored to avoid adverse ecological impacts.” In order to certify industrial tree plantations, FSC is
saying that a plantation company that plants millions of exotic trees (which may become weedy and
spread into natural ecosystems, as is the case with eucalyptus, pine and acacia plantations in South Africa,
for example) is actually “carefully controlling” the use of exotic species. Clearly, this is nonsense. Any
company “actively monitoring” its plantations would immediately realise that its monocultures have
created adverse ecological impacts.
Principle 10 is a strange mixture of statements. On the one hand, parts of Principle 10 sound similar to the
propaganda produced by plantation proponents. On the other hand, Principle 10 includes several criteria
which are apparently aimed at excluding industrial tree plantations from FSC certification (although the
wording used is so weak that it is wide open to interpretation by the certifying bodies).
Principle 10 includes the following statement:
“While plantations can provide an array of social and economic benefits, and can contribute to satisfying
the world’s needs for forest products, they should complement the management of, reduce pressures on,
and promote the restoration and conservation of natural forests.”
This is not a principle against which plantation management can be judged, it is the sort of wishful
thinking produced by the pulp and paper industry. The language does not lend itself to precise
interpretation. Instead of saying that plantations shall provide social and economic benefits and reduce
pressure on forests, it says that they can and should do so respectively. An industrial tree plantation
established to provide raw material for a pulp mill, explicitly does not provide social and environmental
benefits. Proving that a particular plantation reduces pressure on forests would be difficult, if not
impossible. It would involve taking into account the activities of all the people who have moved away
from the area of the plantations because of the impact on their livelihoods. In many cases, they have little
choice other than to clear areas of forest elsewhere to grow food. Neither do plantations “promote the
restoration and conservation of natural forests”, on the contrary, plantations often replace natural forest.
In its 2003 report on “Fastwood” plantations, CIFOR notes that “there is little evidence to suggest that
638 “Stop GE Trees Campaign seeks clarification of FSC’s position on GM trees”, FSC-Watch, 12 October 2008.
http://www.fscwatch.org/archives/2007/10/12/Stop_GE_Trees_Campaign_seeks_clarification_of_FSC_s_position_on_GM_trees