Plantations, poverty and power - Critical Information Collective

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