Plantations, poverty and power - Critical Information Collective

41
impact of the plantations on water supply. Woodmark found that Sappi’s replanting procedures did not
comply with national regulations requiring a 30-metre-wide strip along streams. In one place trees had
been planted too close to a stream. In another, a stream was channelled across a road instead of under
it. 176
In his 2004 report, Wally Menne of Timberwatch found that the plantations are affecting the flow of
water. Menne interviewed Rex Brown of Environmental Consultancy Services, a Swaziland consulting
firm which works for the government and private companies. Brown told him that he considers
plantations to be one of the causes of water shortages in the country. “The plantations occur in important
upland catchments – essential areas for the provision of water for equally important irrigation activities in
the Swaziland Lowveld,” Brown said. 177
During their assessment, Woodmark spoke to a local farmer, Peter George, whose land is next to one of
Sappi’s plantations. “Due to the planting of pine trees since 1989 . . . the natural flow of water in the
streams was severely depleted,” Peter George told Woodmark.
Woodmark chose to ignore what Peter George told them during the assessment, because he has taken out
a legal case against Sappi. “The issue regarding the reduction of water flow caused by the planting of
trees and the subsequent claim is ‘sub judice’ and is therefore under judicial consideration,” Woodmark’s
assessors wrote in the Public Summary. Under the sub judice (from the Latin, “under judgement”) rule in
British law it can be an offence to publicly discuss current or upcoming court cases. The rule is intended
to protect the right of defendants to a fair trail, but in this case Woodmark is hiding behind the sub judice
rule to prevent legitimate debate. When Woodmark’s assessors revisited Swaziland in 2007 for their
annual audit of Sappi’s plantations, they did not invite Peter George to their stakeholder meeting. Neither
did they visit his farm. 178
Peter George bought the Elangeni Farm in the mid-1970s and started to farm the land. He grew
vegetables and some acacia and eucalyptus trees. When he started farming, there was plenty of water. In
the mid-1980s, the Usutu Pulp Company started planting the hills next to his farm with pine plantations.
George was forced to stop farming when the streams on his farm dried up.
I visited Peter George’s farm in November 2007 with colleagues from the World Rainforest Movement.
George showed us where the Usutu Pulp Company had planted trees right through the streams which had
provided his farm with water. Several years ago, Sappi cleared the plantations and the streams started to
recover, although it was 18 months before one of the streams started to flow again. Sappi has not
replanted right up to the streams, but neither has it kept the 30-metre-wide strips along the streams which
are required under Swaziland’s regulations. 179
176 “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
177 Wally Menne (2004) “Timber Plantations in Swaziland: An investigation into the environmental and social impacts
of large-scale timber plantations in Swaziland”, Timberwatch Coalition and World Rainforest Movement, December 2004,
page 24. http://www.wrm.org.uy/countries/Swaziland/Plantations.pdf
178 Chris Lang (2007) “Swaziland: Woodmark and Sappi ignore the lessons from a neighbouring farmer”, World
Rainforest Movement Bulletin 125, December 2007. http://chrislang.org/2007/12/20/swaziland-woodmark-and-sappiignore-the-lessons-from-a-neighbouring-farmer/
179 For more information about Peter George, see “Just Add Water”, a leaflet that Peter George wrote in November