Plantations, poverty and power - Critical Information Collective

More documents

Recommendations

Info

39 after an assessment by the Soil Association’s Woodmark. In the UK, the Soil Association is well known as a promoter of organic agriculture. It is difficult to imagine a form of land management which is further removed from the Soil Association’s aim of promoting organic agriculture than Sappi’s industrial tree plantations. More greenwashing of Sappi’s plantations comes from Professor Julian Evans, a British forester, often considered to be one of the world’s leading plantation experts. Evans has made his career based in part on his studies of the pine plantations established to feed the Usutu pulp mill. Professor Evans is apparently oblivious to the social and environmental impacts of industrial tree plantations. For example, at the 2004 meeting of the International Union of Forest Research Organizations, Evans said that “Productive plantations, whether for industry or energy, need not be ecological deserts devoid of wildlife or an unwanted landscape, but efficient wood-growing crops managed so as to enrich diversity, development and their desirability as a land use. With plantation forests [sic] ‘you can have your cake and eat it’, generating win-win situations. This, I believe, is the future direction for the great bulk of planted forest [sic].” 167 Evans started monitoring the long-term productivity of the Usutu plantations in 1968. In a 1988 article in FAO’s Unasylva magazine, he reported on the results of twenty years of studies, and assessed “the various environmental consequences of converting some 52000 ha of high veld grasslands into what is essentially a pine monoculture.” 168 His description of the plantations as monocultures is accurate. Unfortunately, little else that Evans has written about Swaziland shows similar insightfulness. 169 “Virtually no Swazi villagers were displaced,” according to Evans. Yet, according to Woodmark’s public summary of their assessment for FSC, “The majority of Usutu’s land-holdings were previously private title deed portions, belonging to sheep and cattle farmers requiring grazing for only part of the year, or non-resident land-owners who rarely visited the land. The afforestation drive of the 1950s was preceded by negotiations with local chiefs, after which assistance was given with relocation to beyond the Company’s property.” 170 A total of 48,000 hectares was bought of which 42,000 hectares was planted, “the remainder being unplantable ground, fire-breaks, roads and land for villages”, notes Evans. By 1988, the company held 67,000 hectares of which 55,000 hectares were planted with pine monocultures. 167 “Economics and Management of High Productivity Plantations”, International Union of Forest Research Organizations meeting Lugo, Spain, 27-30 September 2004. http://www.iufro.org/download/file/1357/3661/40402-archivepastevents.doc 168 Julian Evans (1988) “The Usutu forest: Twenty years later”, Unasylva, Vol. 40, No. 159, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. http://www.fao.org/docrep/s5780e/s5780e04.htm#the%20usutu%20forest:%20twenty%20years%20later 169 For a more detailed critique of Julian Evans’ work on plantations in Swaziland, see Wally Menne and Ricardo Carrere (2007) “Swaziland: The myth of sustainable timber plantations”, World Rainforest Movement, March 2007. http://www.wrm.org.uy/countries/Swaziland/book.html 170 “Woodmark Forest Certification Public Report, Sappi Usutu”, Woodmark, Soil Association, July 2006. http://www.organicweek.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/librarytitles/22D0E.HTMl/$file/Usutu%20FM%20S1%20report%20FINAL .xls
40 Evans argues that replacing grassland with pine plantations created “a large area of ‘new’ habitat, structurally much more diverse than grass veld”. He adds that by excluding humans from the ecosystem, “the large area of forest [sic] is now excellent wildlife cover”. While he admits that no systematic monitoring of wildlife has been carried out, Evans reports that since 1968, the numbers and varieties of animals have increased, “and today greatly exceed those of the pre-existing grassland”. Evans explains that this is “because the large plantations provide shelter and refuge from man.” He continues, “In the Usutu forest [sic], hunting is forbidden, man [sic] finds the monoculture relatively unattractive for recreation, and the distance of sight, hearing, and smell are all reduced; thus animals are safer and more protected.” 171 In its 2006 assessment of the Usutu plantations for FSC certification Woodmark came to a different conclusion. In the plantations, “there is very little wildlife,” wrote Woodmark’s assessors. Any wildlife in the plantations is “Due to the close proximity of Usutu to the Mlilwane Game Sanctuary” and “a number of interesting animal sitings [sic] have been noted by foresters and visitors to Usutu.” 172 In order to produce his optimistic analysis of Sappi’s plantations, Evans introduces the concept of “narrow-sense sustainability”. This refers only to wood yields over several rotations, to determine whether trees “can be grown indefinitely for rotation after rotation on the same site without serious risk to their well being.” 173 Evans thus excludes the social and environmental impacts of tree plantations from his analysis and is looking only at the technical aspects of industrial tree plantations. Nevertheless, he makes public statements that plantations in Swaziland are “sustainable”, without making any mention of “narrow-sense sustainability”. 174 He has also done so in writing: “There is no general evidence of declining yields resulting from intensive plantation forestry of cultivation of three crops of the same species on the same site. The prospects for this continuing are good. With good husbandry Usutu’s plantation forestry is demonstrably and wholly sustainable.” 175 Evans fails to mention that what he’s talking about here is “narrow-sense sustainability”. It is nonsense to conclude from measurements of tree growth that Swaziland’s industrial tree plantations are “wholly sustainable”. Although Woodmark recommended that Sappi should be certified by FSC, in its assessment Woodmark documented several serious problems with Sappi’s plantations. Perhaps the most important was the 171 Julian Evans (1988) “The Usutu forest: Twenty years later”, Unasylva, Vol. 40, No. 159, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. http://www.fao.org/docrep/s5780e/s5780e04.htm#the%20usutu%20forest:%20twenty%20years%20later 172 “Woodmark Forest Certification Public Report, Sappi Usutu”, Woodmark, Soil Association, July 2006. http://www.organicweek.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/librarytitles/22D0E.HTMl/$file/Usutu%20FM%20S1%20report%20FINAL .xls 173 Julian Evans (1999) “Sustainability of Forest Plantations: The evidence. A review of evidence concerning the narrow-sense sustainability of planted forests”, Department for International Development, May 1999. 174 Wally Menne and Ricardo Carrere (2007) “Swaziland: The myth of sustainable timber plantations”, World Rainforest Movement, March 2007, pages 7-8. http://www.wrm.org.uy/countries/Swaziland/book.html 175 Julian Evans (1995) “A Further Review of Third Rotation Productivity in the Usutu Forest, Swaziland”, UPCO Forest Research Report 16/95, cited in Peter Whitfield (1996) “Usutu Pulp Company Limited, Swaziland. A successful Integrated Industrial Forestry Project”, Case study prepared for the UNEP/World Bank Africa Policz Forum, 29-30 August 1996, Nairobi. http://www.worldbank.org/afr/afr_for/fulltext/swazlnd.doc
Page 2 and 3: 1 Plantations, poverty and power: E
Page 4 and 5: 3 CONTENTS Introduction 1. Plantati
Page 6 and 7: 5 New investors have emerged recent
Page 8 and 9: 7 1. Plantations do not plant thems
Page 10 and 11: 9 plantations established on grassl
Page 12 and 13: 11 Nations Food and Agriculture Org
Page 14 and 15: 13 Another reason for the move to t
Page 16 and 17: 15 In his book, “Khor Jor Kor, Fo
Page 18 and 19: 17 Between 1991 and 2006, the numbe
Page 20 and 21: 19 are asking for”, notes WWF. 60
Page 22 and 23: 21 consume fewer goods. Less advert
Page 24 and 25: 23 credit crunch, unstable oil pric
Page 26 and 27: 25 Investment in plantations in the
Page 28 and 29: 27 possible price. Subsidies, linke
Page 30 and 31: 29 2. The anatomy of five pulp proj
Page 32 and 33: 31 However, while the Bank confirme
Page 34 and 35: 33 make way for its tree plantation
Page 36 and 37: 35 In April 2004, about 2,000 famil
Page 38 and 39: 37 Sappi, Swaziland: 50 years of in
Page 42 and 43: 41 impact of the plantations on wat
Page 44 and 45: 43 Advance Agro, Thailand: Deforest
Page 46 and 47: 45 confiscation and liquidation of
Page 48 and 49: 47 management was facing a bankrupt
Page 50 and 51: 49 Indah Kiat, Asia Pulp and Paper,
Page 52 and 53: 51 company owners want profits to b
Page 54 and 55: 53 • US$4.5 billion owed by APP i
Page 56 and 57: 55 explained that “association wi
Page 58 and 59: 57 Indah Kiat faces a series of lan
Page 60 and 61: 59 logging. While the investigation
Page 62 and 63: 61 experimental areas and not from
Page 64 and 65: 63 Staples and Office Depot in the
Page 66 and 67: 65 “the exhaustive studies have c
Page 68 and 69: 67 CEDHA has also filed complaints
Page 70 and 71: 69 of converting grasslands to indu
Page 72 and 73: 71 3. Pulp Inc. Profiles of seven p
Page 74 and 75: 73 Thailand, a power plant for a Ne
Page 76 and 77: 75 Management’s experts the possi
Page 78 and 79: 77 A year after Aracruz’s third p
Page 80 and 81: 79 In January 2003, Pöyry announce
Page 82 and 83: 81 Bank in the early 1990s. Groome
Page 84 and 85: 83 Pöyry’s role in the Baikal Pu
Page 86 and 87: 85 Under carbon financing, Pöyry o
Page 88 and 89: 87 Pöyry is working on second gene
Page 90 and 91:
89 The Confederation of European Pa
Page 92 and 93:
91 CEPI Eurokraft states that “it
Page 94 and 95:
93 sectors need to reduce by 21% co
Page 96 and 97:
95 The ADB’s report notes that th
Page 98 and 99:
97 Nepal In Nepal, the target area
Page 100 and 101:
99 loan for the second plantations
Page 102 and 103:
101 International Finance Corporati
Page 104 and 105:
103 •In December 2000, IFC approv
Page 106 and 107:
105 firm’s activities. After his
Page 108 and 109:
107 safeguards are in practice.
Page 110 and 111:
109 Bank projects are approved by a
Page 112 and 113:
111 •€80 million to Portucel to
Page 114 and 115:
113 The Food and Agriculture Organi
Page 116 and 117:
115 Nevertheless, Poore and Fries n
Page 118 and 119:
117 failure to define industrial tr
Page 120 and 121:
119 FAO’s guidelines recommend th
Page 122 and 123:
121 Rosengren did not reply to my e
Page 124 and 125:
123 Forest Stewardship Council: Mis
Page 126 and 127:
125 body that rubber stamps operati
Page 128 and 129:
127 Criterion 1.6, for example, sta
Page 130 and 131:
129 fast wood plantations have take
Page 132 and 133:
131 Principle 10.8 should prevent t
Page 134 and 135:
133 By April 2004, FSC had, at last
Page 136 and 137:
135 plantations, because it creates
Page 138 and 139:
137 integrated set of common Princi
Page 140 and 141:
139 for clearing areas of Atlantic
Page 142 and 143:
141 Colombia were certified by SGS.
Page 144 and 145:
143 The dissociation became necessa
Page 146 and 147:
145 4. Future planned pulp mills As
Page 148 and 149:
147 Planned pulp projects: 698 Comp
Page 150 and 151:
149 UPM and Sveza Group Vologda Rus
Page 152:
151 paper industry along ecological
show all

Plantations, poverty and power - Critical Information Collective

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?