Planting trees can be very good, but can also be very bad.
depends on your goal, its scale, the site where they are installed and the benefits or costs they generate for local populations. The large-scale plantations with fast growing species such as eucalyptus and pines, are those that generate more negative impacts, both socially and environmentally.
Due to these impacts, such plantations has led to widespread fighting against him. The response of the plantation companies and promoters that drive this model has been to deny the occurrence of such impacts and to develop and disseminate a false propaganda to gain support in sectors of the population uninformed. Among the many falsehoods
advertised in favor of large-scale monoculture tree plantations are the 10 following:
Lie 1:
Forest plantations are "planted forests"
Technicians and companies insist on calling "planted forests" to the plantations. This confusion between a crop (of trees) and a forest is the starting point of the propaganda for the plantations. In a world sensitized to the serious problem of deforestation, the activity of "planting forests" is generally perceived as positive. However, a plantation is a forest and the only thing they have in common is that both trees predominate. There the similarity ends. A forest contains:
• many species of trees and shrubs of all ages.
• a large number of other plant species, both on the ground and on trees themselves and shrubs (vines, epiphytes, parasites, etc.)..
• a wide variety of species of fauna found there shelter, food and breeding grounds.
This diversity of flora and fauna interacts with other elements such as soil nutrients, water, solar energy and climate, so as to ensure its self-regeneration and conservation of all its component elements (flora, fauna, water, soil).
Human communities are also part of forests, because many people inhabit, interact with them and there obtained a set of goods and services that ensure their survival.
Unlike forest a commercial scale includes:
• one or a few species of fast growing trees grown on homogeneous blocks of the same age.
• very few species of flora and fauna are able to grow in plantations.
commercial plantations require soil preparation, plant selection for rapid growth and technological features required by the industry, fertilizers, elimination of "weeds" with herbicides, planting with regular spacing, harvesting in short rotations.
Moreover, human communities not only live in the plantations, but that normally are not even allowed access, as they are seen as a danger to them. In the best case, are seen as providers of cheap labor for planting and harvesting of trees to be held years later.
As further its goal is to produce and harvest large quantities of timber in the shortest time possible, we can say that has the same characteristics as any other agricultural crop. Therefore, it is not a "forest", but a culture, as is often supported by plantation companies themselves to be asked about it.
In short, a plantation is not a "forest planted ", because in addition to the above, it is clearly not possible to plant, and the diversity of flora and fauna that characterize a forest, or the set of interactions with living and inorganic elements that occur in a forest.
Lie 2:
forest plantations enhance the environment
Presented as "planted forests", it says that plantations to protect and improve the soil and regulate the water cycle and to preserve the flora and fauna local.
1) soils. This type of plantation soils tend to degrade by the conjunction of a number of factors:
• erosion particularly because the soil is left bare so during the first 2 years after planting and during the 2 years after harvest, which facilitates the erosive action of wind and water.
• loss of nutrients, both by erosion and by high volumes of wood from the site every few years.
• imbalances in nutrient recycling. Being exotic species, local decomposing bodies have great difficulty to decompose organic matter falling from the trees (leaves, twigs, fruits), so that nutrients that fall to the ground takes a long time to come back to be reused by trees. For both pine and eucalyptus, is common to see how it is accumulated undecomposed litter on the ground.
• compaction by heavy machinery, which makes the penetration of rainwater and facilitates erosion.
• difficult conversion. Of all of these and other impacts, it appears that in many cases be very difficult to re-use these soils for agriculture.
2) Water. This vital element is affected both in quantity and quality:
• basin level, the volume of water available tends to decrease after the installation of these plantations. In such situations diverse as southern Chile, the state of Espirito Santo in Brazil, South Africa or Thailand, it appears that the water regime suffers adverse changes resulting from the planting of large areas of pine and eucalyptus trees of rapid growth. This is due to several factors, but the main one being the high water consumption of these species. To grow, plants take nutrients from the soil to the leaves, where photosynthesis occurs. The vehicle to carry nutrients to the leaf is water. To grow, they need more nutrients, which implies greater use of water for transport to the leaves. Since it is large plantations growing at an accelerated pace, the impacts on water are becoming more severe, up to the disappearance of springs and streams.
• to confuse, the plantation promoters argue that some species of trees (particularly Eucalyptus) produce more biomass per unit of water used and therefore are more "efficient" than native trees. However, do not take into account that the eucalyptus plantations are notoriously "inefficient" in producing food, fodder, medicines, fibers, fruits, mushrooms and other products that local people get from forests. In addition, it is irrelevant to define the efficiency of a eucalyptus plantation for timber with a certain amount of water if anyway uses more water than the area can produce.
• most commonly used species in plantations (eucalyptus and pine) hinder the infiltration of water into the soil, which, coupled with the huge consumption of water, exacerbating the impacts at the watershed level.
• Water quality is also affected, both by erosion and by the widespread use of chemicals that pollute.
3) The flora. The impacts on local flora are many serious because of the large-scale plantations, affecting a large number of habitats:
• in many cases, plantations are a factor in deforestation, because its installation is preceded by logging or burning of existing forest, as often occurs in tropical areas and especially in Indonesia. In these cases the impact is huge.
• in the temperate zone, the flora of the prairie ecosystem lowers the abundance and richness when installed on the same plantation.
• the planting area, much of the local flora is wiped out to avoid competing with the trees planted and only a few species able to grow within the plantations. But even these few species are removed every few years when the plantation is cut and replanted, becoming the application of herbicides to eliminate competition.
• between the flora that disappears into the plantation, it is important especially the flora of the soil, which plays a fundamental role in maintaining soil fertility in the long term.
• the aforementioned impact on the water also affects the local flora, even at great distances from the planting site.
4) The fauna. The impacts on wildlife
• for most species of local fauna, plantations are food deserts, and they tend to disappear. The few species that fail to adapt, or are exterminated (considering "pests" for planting) or see their new habitat disappear each time the plantation is cut for timber sales.
• when planting is preceded by deforestation, the impact on local wildlife is up.
• As in the case of plants, both prior to planting deforestation and changes in soil water and negatively affect a wide range of wildlife species.
• biological imbalances caused by these plantations often result in the appearance of pests that affect agricultural production nearby.
Lie 3:
plantations serve to relieve pressure on forests
The argument is that having more available wood from plantations, this will result in less logging of native forests. Although it may seem logical, the reality is that it has been found that plantations are generally a factor of deforestation because:
• In many countries, removing plantings were installed previously existing forest. In some cases, such removal is done by huge fires, while other forest logging and timber sales are used to finance the planting. It is also the case that justifies planting deforestation, as it argues that the cutting of large areas is not deforestation if it is followed by the planting of trees. In some cases, the mere announcement of the interests of plantation companies to invest in a particular region is in a run that involves buying and quickly degrade forest areas to enable them to be later for planting of trees by these companies.
• In many cases the above process determines the migration (voluntary or forced) of the residents of the region, who are forced to enter other wooded areas where deforestation began a process to help meet their basic needs. That is, in these cases the deforestation caused by the planting is twofold.
• wood produced in plantations in no way replaces the valuable tropical forest species, because both have different markets. While most of the wood from plantations is used to produce paper and wood products of low quality, the majority of wood from forests (including tropical) is transformed into high quality products. •
this argument also ignores the fact that wood consumption is not the only cause of deforestation. Large areas of forest are often removed to allocate land to export crops or cattle ranching, others disappear under giant hydroelectric dams, the mangroves are removed to allocate the area to industrial shrimp production, oil exploitation and mining destroys large areas forest, etc. None of these destructive processes unrelated to the greater or lesser area for monoculture plantations, so it is clearly false in this case can "relieve pressure" on forests.
In short, despite the growing importance of forest plantations, forest area the planet continues to decline, showing that the alleged relief of pressure on forests is not just a publicity exercise concerned.
Lie 4:
plantations can build on and improve degraded lands
This argument, promoted by large plantation companies, is absolutely wrong in your case, since large-scale commercial plantations rarely established on degraded lands . The reason is simple: in such soils the trees do not grow well, so there is not profitable plant.
That said, it is necessary to clarify certain aspects, since this whole subject tends to be very confusing. Indeed, it is clarify what is meant by "degraded lands" and noted that some types of commercial plantations do not actually take place on degraded land and improvements.
For most people, the term "degraded land" awakens a vision of lunar type, severely eroded soils and little or no vegetation. In these cases, any activity that aims to make these soils, either by planting trees or by other means, can be regarded as essentially positive. However, the term "degraded land" can mean simply an area of \u200b\u200bforest was felled or subsistence agricultural area, they retain their productive potential. It is also often speak of "underused land" as synonymous with degradation. In summary, the plantation companies are the ones who define what the land is degraded or underutilized and so justify their plantations against public opinion. However, local people generally disagree or that the soil is degraded or underused, much less to be planted with eucalyptus, pine or other commercial species. This is what in many cases explains the reluctance of local people against the advance planter, trying to seize lands that are productive and not "degraded" or "underutilized."
Secondly, it can be assumed that a large-scale commercial planting of eucalyptus and pine trees have the same capacity to rehabilitate degraded lands which are small-scale plantings of forage, food, wood production to supply the population local or fixing nitrogen.
Lie 5:
plantations serve to counteract the greenhouse effect
This is one of the arguments that have become more fashionable recently. It is said that as the trees grow, they take carbon in larger amounts than they release, so they have a net positive balance for the amount of carbon dioxide (The main greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere. However, forest plantations have yet to demonstrate that they are carbon sinks.
In general, any area covered by plantations, in the absence of contrary evidence, should be considered a net source of carbon and not a sink. First, because in many cases these plantations replace forests, which means that the volumes of carbon released by deforestation are higher than the growing plantation can capture, even in the long term. Even when not involve deforestation, are installed in other ecosystems that store carbon as well (such as prairies) which is released into the atmosphere as a result of the plantation. There is a second crucial question: are these plantations will be harvested or not? In the first scenario would be in the best, only temporary sinks: the carbon is stored until harvest and then be released in a few years (in some cases even months) when the paper or other products from the plantations are destroyed. In the event that the trees were not harvested, the plantations would be occupying millions of hectares that could be devoted to more useful purposes, such as food production.
is, there are many uncertainties in connection with the assumption that plantations are everywhere, carbon sinks for a longer period than the early period of rapid growth, because they can not be even in that period. This assumption of "common sense" should be supported with research before they are accepted without further plantations as carbon sinks.
Finally, it is essential to view the item in its full dimension and analyze all the impacts that promoting large monocultures of fast growth in other areas can generate environmental and social. Knowing that these plantations have negative impacts on the environment (soil, water, flora and fauna) and on local communities is not acceptable to promote them with a purpose "environmental" as to counteract the greenhouse effect. The solution has to come from the side of reducing CO2 emissions (resulting from the use of fossil fuels) and the protection of forests and not by attempts to colonize large areas of land without having considered fully the consequences.
Lie 6:
plantations are needed to meet growing consumption of paper
Paper consumption is generally perceived as positive, connected to literacy, access to written information and a better quality of life. That perception the public is used by the plantation companies to justify the alleged need to increase pulp production from its vast plantations of pine and eucalyptus. Therefore, this issue requires some clarification:
• much of the pulp produced in the South is not intended to supply the population of these countries, but consumers in the North. In both the U.S. and Japan have annual paper consumption per capita of over 330 and 230 kilos respectively, pulp exporting countries such as Chile, South Africa, Brazil and Indonesia show a per capita consumption of 42, 38, 28 and 10 kilos respectively.
• about 40% of paper produced worldwide is used for packaging and wrapping, while only 30% goes to printing and writing papers, so the argument that literacy is not as relevant as it tries to show.
• In addition, much of the consumption of printing and writing papers is devoted to advertising. In the United States, 60% of space in magazines and newspapers is reserved for ads, while every year there are about 52,000 million units of various types of advertising materials, including 14,000 million mail-order catalogs that often go straight to the trash. This type of excessive paper consumption is not unique to the United States it is also characteristic of most northern countries and even plans to export this model to the South.
The issue is then that the current consumption of paper is environmentally unsustainable and that a large part of it is socially unnecessary. Therefore, plans or forest use or the expansion plans of forest plantations can pretend to justify themselves by saying that "humanity" needs more paper.
Lie 7:
plantations are more productive than forests
This argument may seem compelling if you look at the rapid growth of trees in a plantation pine or eucalyptus. However, it depends on what you mean by "productive" and who benefits from that production.
A commercial planting produces a large volume of industrial wood per hectare per year. But that's all it produces. The direct beneficiary of this production is the owner of the plantation.
A forest does not only produce (such as planting) wood for the market, but its output includes other types of trees, plants, animals, fruits, mushrooms, honey, fodder, fertilizer, firewood, timber for local use, fibers , medicine, and also generates a range of services on soil conservation biodiversity, water resources, microclimate.
When argues that plantations are more productive forests are only comparing the volume of timber industry that can be extracted from both and in this comparison appears to be superior planting.
However, when comparing all goods and services provided by the plantation and forest, it is clear that the latter is much more productive than planting. Moreover, in many ways the plantation production is zero (eg food production, medicine and fodder) and may even be negative, when it affects other resources such as water, biodiversity or soil.
This is particularly clear to those local people who suffer from the establishment of extensive monocultures, since suffering the loss of most of the resources that had previously ensured their survival. For them, the productivity of these plantations is null or rather negative.
Lie 8:
plantations generate employment
This is also a typical argument between those promoting plantations. However, this statement is totally false. Large plantations
direct jobs generated mainly in the stages of planting and harvest. After planting, employment fell substantially. At harvest time, planting again requires the recruitment of labor, but the number of jobs tends to decrease markedly by the increasing mechanization of this operation.
The few jobs created are generally of poor quality, being mostly temporary, low wages and working conditions characterized by poor nutrition, inadequate housing and non-compliance of labor laws. Accidents and illnesses are common. The predominant model in the South, the plantation companies that subcontract to informal enterprises to perform the tasks of planting and harvesting. Given the low level of investment required, the informal competition among these companies is based primarily on low cost labor, which explains the very poor pay and working conditions of forestry workers. Only in cases where the crop is based on expensive modern forest machinery, such tasks are left to the plantation company, which is forced to offer better working conditions.
simultaneously in many countries tend to deprive the previous occupants of the land of their former jobs. It is common that these plantations are installed on land for subsistence farming so even the net employment trend is negative in many cases. On the other hand, when your previous installation involves the destruction of forests, local people are deprived of a number of occupations and income sources dependent on the resources provided by the forest. In almost all cases, the plantations are in the expulsion of the local population, particularly to the slums of cities.
Everywhere in the world it is found that plantations generate much less employment than agriculture and even less than ranching. As for industrial use, plantations do not always lead to the creation of local industries, since in many cases production points to the direct export of raw logs. Even when established industries of pulp and paper, its high degree of mechanization involves creating few jobs.
Of all the activities can generate local employment, the plantation activity is probably the worst option. The objective of the forestry companies is not creating jobs, but to generate profits for their shareholders. However, using this false argument to justify his undertaking socially.
Lie 9:
Potential negative impacts of industrial tree monocultures
can prevent or mitigate
with good management
Ultimately, plantation promoters can accept that these are not forests and can lead to negative impacts, but added that these impacts are generated by poor management and not the plantation itself. The solution, they say, is then technique: to use good management methods.
However, it is not a technical issue, but an essentially political question of power, with winners and losers. Since the centers of power making decisions that affect life and survival chances of local people and strongly influence government decisions, with the aim of supplying a global market with wood products it requires. The needs and aspirations premises are not counted. This is what gives the main problems that this type of plantations entail. Obviously this can not be solved with any "good management." Moreover, the good management of the plantation companies is primarily to convince the government to permit them to invest in certain regions of the country, which gives them certain advantages (direct and indirect subsidies) and to intervene-if necessary-to leave or repress local residents. In a significant number of cases, different forms of pressure and repression are the main tool of "good management" to resolve social conflicts generated by the plantations.
Regarding environmental impacts generated by commercial plantations, it is also unrealistic to pretend that they can be resolved through a good technical management. The very characteristics make this model is essentially unsustainable for more conservation practices are adopted for monitoring and also greatly improve the image of the company against potential environmental opponents. In fact, the model is characterized by:
• the large scale. Is not the same environmental impact that can generate
a eucalyptus or pine that generate tens or hundreds of thousands of hectares concentrated in certain region of a country. The change of space Geography is huge. To conceal this fact, the promoters of the plantations today insist on using percentages, saying "Only 1 or 2% of the total area of \u200b\u200bthe country." However, you can not hide the sun with his hand. The truth is that for large concentrations of monoculture tree plantations and the only "good management" is just possible to reduce the issue to a percentage.
• the monoculture of exotic species. While most crop species are exotic, in the case of the species used in tree crops that have strong negative implications. The choice of these species originates in part from the absence pest and disease in countries where they are introduced, which could affect them. While this is quite logical for the planter, it is a problem for the local fauna, for which these plantations are a food desert. Attached to the subject of large scale, in particular the impact on wildlife is therefore enormous. Biodiversity at ground level is seriously affected because the litter of pine and eucalyptus are toxic to most of the soil flora and fauna. The system also features a large inherent weakness, because in case of a species appear able to feed on living trees, will become a pest that may call into question all similar plantations in the region.
• the growth rate. The business logic of these enterprises makes the growth rate is crucial to ensure the return on investment. Such growth is based in part on the selection of species, but also in the use of fertilizers and herbicides (affecting soil and water) and a huge consumption of water, which affects the entire region. To make matters worse, forest biotechnology is also pointing in that direction, creating "super trees" further growth and resistant to herbicides, so that the impact would be twofold: increased use of pollution chemicals and increased water consumption.
• the short-rotation short. The same logic determines which trees are cut every few years, which implies a large outflow of nutrients from the system and processes of erosion and habitat destruction of the few native species that were adapted for planting.
From the foregoing it is clear that few technical measures can be taken to prevent or mitigate most of the environmental impacts generated by the plantations. While it may improve some aspects (use less harmful chemicals, prepare the soil following contour lines, take care that there is no erosion processes at the time of harvesting, preserving wilderness as patches in the landscape, monitor soil, water, flora and fauna, etc.), the fact is that it is impossible to avoid the impacts because the model itself does not allow it: you can not (since in terms of profitability) make the trees grow more slowly, consume less water, which do not require fertilizers, which do not affect the soils, which do not reduce local biodiversity. In short, the problem is the model and the adoption of appropriate management measures.
Lie 10:
plantations can not be judged in isolation
This is one of the most recent arguments of the promoters of the plantations. They argue that there is a "seamless system" between primary forest and "planted forest" specialized in timber production. That is, there would be a system they call "forest", including protected forests, production forests, protection forests, secondary forests and plantations of fast growing trees. So, say you have to analyze the system "forest" in its entirety and not focus on only one of its components: large-scale monoculture tree plantations. The argument is clever, but no less false than the previous.
First, because some of the false premise that a plantation is a forest. The these plantations to which we refer is a specialty crop in the production of large volumes of wood in short periods, whose only similarity to a forest is to be composed of trees that are not even native. Therefore, we can not speak of a "seamless system" between elements intrinsically different. It would be like saying that the native fauna and breeding of dairy cows are a continuum between the natural and specialized in the production of milk and that alone is not possible to judge the impacts of dairy farming not analyzed in that context.
Second, because in general commercial plantations not only complement forests, but in many cases constitute direct or indirect causes of deforestation. The same can be said about how they affect biodiversity, soil, water, and in particular local populations.
Ultimately, this argument seeks to justify the destruction of nature in a particular conservation area, arguing that secured in another area. By including plantations in the alleged scheme "forest", hides and justifies the social and environmental destruction generated from the large-scale monocultures. Address the impacts on biodiversity, the response of the ideologues of this lie will be to say that it ensures by the existence of protected areas ... even if they are separated by hundreds of miles. Say the same thing with respect to the hydrological regime ... although the forest plantations and are in different basins. Not to talk about land ... where they have no arguments and appeal to the argument of employment generation (Lie 8) to hide the social impacts of plantations, which will show the difference between a forest (where people live) and a plantation (where people are expelled).
The bottom line is that this argument seeks to justify a logic that divorces the production of conservation: indeed, using conservation as an excuse to enable the destruction. The existence of protected forest areas (which effectively protect the soil, flora, fauna and regulate the hydrological cycle) becomes the justification for implementing large-scale monocultures (in this case, trees) that destroy all the natural resources and rights and livelihoods of local populations.
Since the only way to ensure social and environmental sustainability is to integrate conservation into production processes (and not separated into watertight compartments), these monoculture tree can in no way be considered as integrating the forest system therefore, their impacts should be analyzed separately, as with any other agricultural crop.
depends on your goal, its scale, the site where they are installed and the benefits or costs they generate for local populations. The large-scale plantations with fast growing species such as eucalyptus and pines, are those that generate more negative impacts, both socially and environmentally.
Due to these impacts, such plantations has led to widespread fighting against him. The response of the plantation companies and promoters that drive this model has been to deny the occurrence of such impacts and to develop and disseminate a false propaganda to gain support in sectors of the population uninformed. Among the many falsehoods
advertised in favor of large-scale monoculture tree plantations are the 10 following:
Lie 1:
Forest plantations are "planted forests"
Technicians and companies insist on calling "planted forests" to the plantations. This confusion between a crop (of trees) and a forest is the starting point of the propaganda for the plantations. In a world sensitized to the serious problem of deforestation, the activity of "planting forests" is generally perceived as positive. However, a plantation is a forest and the only thing they have in common is that both trees predominate. There the similarity ends. A forest contains:
• many species of trees and shrubs of all ages.
• a large number of other plant species, both on the ground and on trees themselves and shrubs (vines, epiphytes, parasites, etc.)..
• a wide variety of species of fauna found there shelter, food and breeding grounds.
This diversity of flora and fauna interacts with other elements such as soil nutrients, water, solar energy and climate, so as to ensure its self-regeneration and conservation of all its component elements (flora, fauna, water, soil).
Human communities are also part of forests, because many people inhabit, interact with them and there obtained a set of goods and services that ensure their survival.
Unlike forest a commercial scale includes:
• one or a few species of fast growing trees grown on homogeneous blocks of the same age.
• very few species of flora and fauna are able to grow in plantations.
commercial plantations require soil preparation, plant selection for rapid growth and technological features required by the industry, fertilizers, elimination of "weeds" with herbicides, planting with regular spacing, harvesting in short rotations.
Moreover, human communities not only live in the plantations, but that normally are not even allowed access, as they are seen as a danger to them. In the best case, are seen as providers of cheap labor for planting and harvesting of trees to be held years later.
As further its goal is to produce and harvest large quantities of timber in the shortest time possible, we can say that has the same characteristics as any other agricultural crop. Therefore, it is not a "forest", but a culture, as is often supported by plantation companies themselves to be asked about it.
In short, a plantation is not a "forest planted ", because in addition to the above, it is clearly not possible to plant, and the diversity of flora and fauna that characterize a forest, or the set of interactions with living and inorganic elements that occur in a forest.
Lie 2:
forest plantations enhance the environment
Presented as "planted forests", it says that plantations to protect and improve the soil and regulate the water cycle and to preserve the flora and fauna local.
1) soils. This type of plantation soils tend to degrade by the conjunction of a number of factors:
• erosion particularly because the soil is left bare so during the first 2 years after planting and during the 2 years after harvest, which facilitates the erosive action of wind and water.
• loss of nutrients, both by erosion and by high volumes of wood from the site every few years.
• imbalances in nutrient recycling. Being exotic species, local decomposing bodies have great difficulty to decompose organic matter falling from the trees (leaves, twigs, fruits), so that nutrients that fall to the ground takes a long time to come back to be reused by trees. For both pine and eucalyptus, is common to see how it is accumulated undecomposed litter on the ground.
• compaction by heavy machinery, which makes the penetration of rainwater and facilitates erosion.
• difficult conversion. Of all of these and other impacts, it appears that in many cases be very difficult to re-use these soils for agriculture.
2) Water. This vital element is affected both in quantity and quality:
• basin level, the volume of water available tends to decrease after the installation of these plantations. In such situations diverse as southern Chile, the state of Espirito Santo in Brazil, South Africa or Thailand, it appears that the water regime suffers adverse changes resulting from the planting of large areas of pine and eucalyptus trees of rapid growth. This is due to several factors, but the main one being the high water consumption of these species. To grow, plants take nutrients from the soil to the leaves, where photosynthesis occurs. The vehicle to carry nutrients to the leaf is water. To grow, they need more nutrients, which implies greater use of water for transport to the leaves. Since it is large plantations growing at an accelerated pace, the impacts on water are becoming more severe, up to the disappearance of springs and streams.
• to confuse, the plantation promoters argue that some species of trees (particularly Eucalyptus) produce more biomass per unit of water used and therefore are more "efficient" than native trees. However, do not take into account that the eucalyptus plantations are notoriously "inefficient" in producing food, fodder, medicines, fibers, fruits, mushrooms and other products that local people get from forests. In addition, it is irrelevant to define the efficiency of a eucalyptus plantation for timber with a certain amount of water if anyway uses more water than the area can produce.
• most commonly used species in plantations (eucalyptus and pine) hinder the infiltration of water into the soil, which, coupled with the huge consumption of water, exacerbating the impacts at the watershed level.
• Water quality is also affected, both by erosion and by the widespread use of chemicals that pollute.
3) The flora. The impacts on local flora are many serious because of the large-scale plantations, affecting a large number of habitats:
• in many cases, plantations are a factor in deforestation, because its installation is preceded by logging or burning of existing forest, as often occurs in tropical areas and especially in Indonesia. In these cases the impact is huge.
• in the temperate zone, the flora of the prairie ecosystem lowers the abundance and richness when installed on the same plantation.
• the planting area, much of the local flora is wiped out to avoid competing with the trees planted and only a few species able to grow within the plantations. But even these few species are removed every few years when the plantation is cut and replanted, becoming the application of herbicides to eliminate competition.
• between the flora that disappears into the plantation, it is important especially the flora of the soil, which plays a fundamental role in maintaining soil fertility in the long term.
• the aforementioned impact on the water also affects the local flora, even at great distances from the planting site.
4) The fauna. The impacts on wildlife
• for most species of local fauna, plantations are food deserts, and they tend to disappear. The few species that fail to adapt, or are exterminated (considering "pests" for planting) or see their new habitat disappear each time the plantation is cut for timber sales.
• when planting is preceded by deforestation, the impact on local wildlife is up.
• As in the case of plants, both prior to planting deforestation and changes in soil water and negatively affect a wide range of wildlife species.
• biological imbalances caused by these plantations often result in the appearance of pests that affect agricultural production nearby.
Lie 3:
plantations serve to relieve pressure on forests
The argument is that having more available wood from plantations, this will result in less logging of native forests. Although it may seem logical, the reality is that it has been found that plantations are generally a factor of deforestation because:
• In many countries, removing plantings were installed previously existing forest. In some cases, such removal is done by huge fires, while other forest logging and timber sales are used to finance the planting. It is also the case that justifies planting deforestation, as it argues that the cutting of large areas is not deforestation if it is followed by the planting of trees. In some cases, the mere announcement of the interests of plantation companies to invest in a particular region is in a run that involves buying and quickly degrade forest areas to enable them to be later for planting of trees by these companies.
• In many cases the above process determines the migration (voluntary or forced) of the residents of the region, who are forced to enter other wooded areas where deforestation began a process to help meet their basic needs. That is, in these cases the deforestation caused by the planting is twofold.
• wood produced in plantations in no way replaces the valuable tropical forest species, because both have different markets. While most of the wood from plantations is used to produce paper and wood products of low quality, the majority of wood from forests (including tropical) is transformed into high quality products. •
this argument also ignores the fact that wood consumption is not the only cause of deforestation. Large areas of forest are often removed to allocate land to export crops or cattle ranching, others disappear under giant hydroelectric dams, the mangroves are removed to allocate the area to industrial shrimp production, oil exploitation and mining destroys large areas forest, etc. None of these destructive processes unrelated to the greater or lesser area for monoculture plantations, so it is clearly false in this case can "relieve pressure" on forests.
In short, despite the growing importance of forest plantations, forest area the planet continues to decline, showing that the alleged relief of pressure on forests is not just a publicity exercise concerned.
Lie 4:
plantations can build on and improve degraded lands
This argument, promoted by large plantation companies, is absolutely wrong in your case, since large-scale commercial plantations rarely established on degraded lands . The reason is simple: in such soils the trees do not grow well, so there is not profitable plant.
That said, it is necessary to clarify certain aspects, since this whole subject tends to be very confusing. Indeed, it is clarify what is meant by "degraded lands" and noted that some types of commercial plantations do not actually take place on degraded land and improvements.
For most people, the term "degraded land" awakens a vision of lunar type, severely eroded soils and little or no vegetation. In these cases, any activity that aims to make these soils, either by planting trees or by other means, can be regarded as essentially positive. However, the term "degraded land" can mean simply an area of \u200b\u200bforest was felled or subsistence agricultural area, they retain their productive potential. It is also often speak of "underused land" as synonymous with degradation. In summary, the plantation companies are the ones who define what the land is degraded or underutilized and so justify their plantations against public opinion. However, local people generally disagree or that the soil is degraded or underused, much less to be planted with eucalyptus, pine or other commercial species. This is what in many cases explains the reluctance of local people against the advance planter, trying to seize lands that are productive and not "degraded" or "underutilized."
Secondly, it can be assumed that a large-scale commercial planting of eucalyptus and pine trees have the same capacity to rehabilitate degraded lands which are small-scale plantings of forage, food, wood production to supply the population local or fixing nitrogen.
Lie 5:
plantations serve to counteract the greenhouse effect
This is one of the arguments that have become more fashionable recently. It is said that as the trees grow, they take carbon in larger amounts than they release, so they have a net positive balance for the amount of carbon dioxide (The main greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere. However, forest plantations have yet to demonstrate that they are carbon sinks.
In general, any area covered by plantations, in the absence of contrary evidence, should be considered a net source of carbon and not a sink. First, because in many cases these plantations replace forests, which means that the volumes of carbon released by deforestation are higher than the growing plantation can capture, even in the long term. Even when not involve deforestation, are installed in other ecosystems that store carbon as well (such as prairies) which is released into the atmosphere as a result of the plantation. There is a second crucial question: are these plantations will be harvested or not? In the first scenario would be in the best, only temporary sinks: the carbon is stored until harvest and then be released in a few years (in some cases even months) when the paper or other products from the plantations are destroyed. In the event that the trees were not harvested, the plantations would be occupying millions of hectares that could be devoted to more useful purposes, such as food production.
is, there are many uncertainties in connection with the assumption that plantations are everywhere, carbon sinks for a longer period than the early period of rapid growth, because they can not be even in that period. This assumption of "common sense" should be supported with research before they are accepted without further plantations as carbon sinks.
Finally, it is essential to view the item in its full dimension and analyze all the impacts that promoting large monocultures of fast growth in other areas can generate environmental and social. Knowing that these plantations have negative impacts on the environment (soil, water, flora and fauna) and on local communities is not acceptable to promote them with a purpose "environmental" as to counteract the greenhouse effect. The solution has to come from the side of reducing CO2 emissions (resulting from the use of fossil fuels) and the protection of forests and not by attempts to colonize large areas of land without having considered fully the consequences.
Lie 6:
plantations are needed to meet growing consumption of paper
Paper consumption is generally perceived as positive, connected to literacy, access to written information and a better quality of life. That perception the public is used by the plantation companies to justify the alleged need to increase pulp production from its vast plantations of pine and eucalyptus. Therefore, this issue requires some clarification:
• much of the pulp produced in the South is not intended to supply the population of these countries, but consumers in the North. In both the U.S. and Japan have annual paper consumption per capita of over 330 and 230 kilos respectively, pulp exporting countries such as Chile, South Africa, Brazil and Indonesia show a per capita consumption of 42, 38, 28 and 10 kilos respectively.
• about 40% of paper produced worldwide is used for packaging and wrapping, while only 30% goes to printing and writing papers, so the argument that literacy is not as relevant as it tries to show.
• In addition, much of the consumption of printing and writing papers is devoted to advertising. In the United States, 60% of space in magazines and newspapers is reserved for ads, while every year there are about 52,000 million units of various types of advertising materials, including 14,000 million mail-order catalogs that often go straight to the trash. This type of excessive paper consumption is not unique to the United States it is also characteristic of most northern countries and even plans to export this model to the South.
The issue is then that the current consumption of paper is environmentally unsustainable and that a large part of it is socially unnecessary. Therefore, plans or forest use or the expansion plans of forest plantations can pretend to justify themselves by saying that "humanity" needs more paper.
Lie 7:
plantations are more productive than forests
This argument may seem compelling if you look at the rapid growth of trees in a plantation pine or eucalyptus. However, it depends on what you mean by "productive" and who benefits from that production.
A commercial planting produces a large volume of industrial wood per hectare per year. But that's all it produces. The direct beneficiary of this production is the owner of the plantation.
A forest does not only produce (such as planting) wood for the market, but its output includes other types of trees, plants, animals, fruits, mushrooms, honey, fodder, fertilizer, firewood, timber for local use, fibers , medicine, and also generates a range of services on soil conservation biodiversity, water resources, microclimate.
When argues that plantations are more productive forests are only comparing the volume of timber industry that can be extracted from both and in this comparison appears to be superior planting.
However, when comparing all goods and services provided by the plantation and forest, it is clear that the latter is much more productive than planting. Moreover, in many ways the plantation production is zero (eg food production, medicine and fodder) and may even be negative, when it affects other resources such as water, biodiversity or soil.
This is particularly clear to those local people who suffer from the establishment of extensive monocultures, since suffering the loss of most of the resources that had previously ensured their survival. For them, the productivity of these plantations is null or rather negative.
Lie 8:
plantations generate employment
This is also a typical argument between those promoting plantations. However, this statement is totally false. Large plantations
direct jobs generated mainly in the stages of planting and harvest. After planting, employment fell substantially. At harvest time, planting again requires the recruitment of labor, but the number of jobs tends to decrease markedly by the increasing mechanization of this operation.
The few jobs created are generally of poor quality, being mostly temporary, low wages and working conditions characterized by poor nutrition, inadequate housing and non-compliance of labor laws. Accidents and illnesses are common. The predominant model in the South, the plantation companies that subcontract to informal enterprises to perform the tasks of planting and harvesting. Given the low level of investment required, the informal competition among these companies is based primarily on low cost labor, which explains the very poor pay and working conditions of forestry workers. Only in cases where the crop is based on expensive modern forest machinery, such tasks are left to the plantation company, which is forced to offer better working conditions.
simultaneously in many countries tend to deprive the previous occupants of the land of their former jobs. It is common that these plantations are installed on land for subsistence farming so even the net employment trend is negative in many cases. On the other hand, when your previous installation involves the destruction of forests, local people are deprived of a number of occupations and income sources dependent on the resources provided by the forest. In almost all cases, the plantations are in the expulsion of the local population, particularly to the slums of cities.
Everywhere in the world it is found that plantations generate much less employment than agriculture and even less than ranching. As for industrial use, plantations do not always lead to the creation of local industries, since in many cases production points to the direct export of raw logs. Even when established industries of pulp and paper, its high degree of mechanization involves creating few jobs.
Of all the activities can generate local employment, the plantation activity is probably the worst option. The objective of the forestry companies is not creating jobs, but to generate profits for their shareholders. However, using this false argument to justify his undertaking socially.
Lie 9:
Potential negative impacts of industrial tree monocultures
can prevent or mitigate
with good management
Ultimately, plantation promoters can accept that these are not forests and can lead to negative impacts, but added that these impacts are generated by poor management and not the plantation itself. The solution, they say, is then technique: to use good management methods.
However, it is not a technical issue, but an essentially political question of power, with winners and losers. Since the centers of power making decisions that affect life and survival chances of local people and strongly influence government decisions, with the aim of supplying a global market with wood products it requires. The needs and aspirations premises are not counted. This is what gives the main problems that this type of plantations entail. Obviously this can not be solved with any "good management." Moreover, the good management of the plantation companies is primarily to convince the government to permit them to invest in certain regions of the country, which gives them certain advantages (direct and indirect subsidies) and to intervene-if necessary-to leave or repress local residents. In a significant number of cases, different forms of pressure and repression are the main tool of "good management" to resolve social conflicts generated by the plantations.
Regarding environmental impacts generated by commercial plantations, it is also unrealistic to pretend that they can be resolved through a good technical management. The very characteristics make this model is essentially unsustainable for more conservation practices are adopted for monitoring and also greatly improve the image of the company against potential environmental opponents. In fact, the model is characterized by:
• the large scale. Is not the same environmental impact that can generate
a eucalyptus or pine that generate tens or hundreds of thousands of hectares concentrated in certain region of a country. The change of space Geography is huge. To conceal this fact, the promoters of the plantations today insist on using percentages, saying "Only 1 or 2% of the total area of \u200b\u200bthe country." However, you can not hide the sun with his hand. The truth is that for large concentrations of monoculture tree plantations and the only "good management" is just possible to reduce the issue to a percentage.
• the monoculture of exotic species. While most crop species are exotic, in the case of the species used in tree crops that have strong negative implications. The choice of these species originates in part from the absence pest and disease in countries where they are introduced, which could affect them. While this is quite logical for the planter, it is a problem for the local fauna, for which these plantations are a food desert. Attached to the subject of large scale, in particular the impact on wildlife is therefore enormous. Biodiversity at ground level is seriously affected because the litter of pine and eucalyptus are toxic to most of the soil flora and fauna. The system also features a large inherent weakness, because in case of a species appear able to feed on living trees, will become a pest that may call into question all similar plantations in the region.
• the growth rate. The business logic of these enterprises makes the growth rate is crucial to ensure the return on investment. Such growth is based in part on the selection of species, but also in the use of fertilizers and herbicides (affecting soil and water) and a huge consumption of water, which affects the entire region. To make matters worse, forest biotechnology is also pointing in that direction, creating "super trees" further growth and resistant to herbicides, so that the impact would be twofold: increased use of pollution chemicals and increased water consumption.
• the short-rotation short. The same logic determines which trees are cut every few years, which implies a large outflow of nutrients from the system and processes of erosion and habitat destruction of the few native species that were adapted for planting.
From the foregoing it is clear that few technical measures can be taken to prevent or mitigate most of the environmental impacts generated by the plantations. While it may improve some aspects (use less harmful chemicals, prepare the soil following contour lines, take care that there is no erosion processes at the time of harvesting, preserving wilderness as patches in the landscape, monitor soil, water, flora and fauna, etc.), the fact is that it is impossible to avoid the impacts because the model itself does not allow it: you can not (since in terms of profitability) make the trees grow more slowly, consume less water, which do not require fertilizers, which do not affect the soils, which do not reduce local biodiversity. In short, the problem is the model and the adoption of appropriate management measures.
Lie 10:
plantations can not be judged in isolation
This is one of the most recent arguments of the promoters of the plantations. They argue that there is a "seamless system" between primary forest and "planted forest" specialized in timber production. That is, there would be a system they call "forest", including protected forests, production forests, protection forests, secondary forests and plantations of fast growing trees. So, say you have to analyze the system "forest" in its entirety and not focus on only one of its components: large-scale monoculture tree plantations. The argument is clever, but no less false than the previous.
First, because some of the false premise that a plantation is a forest. The these plantations to which we refer is a specialty crop in the production of large volumes of wood in short periods, whose only similarity to a forest is to be composed of trees that are not even native. Therefore, we can not speak of a "seamless system" between elements intrinsically different. It would be like saying that the native fauna and breeding of dairy cows are a continuum between the natural and specialized in the production of milk and that alone is not possible to judge the impacts of dairy farming not analyzed in that context.
Second, because in general commercial plantations not only complement forests, but in many cases constitute direct or indirect causes of deforestation. The same can be said about how they affect biodiversity, soil, water, and in particular local populations.
Ultimately, this argument seeks to justify the destruction of nature in a particular conservation area, arguing that secured in another area. By including plantations in the alleged scheme "forest", hides and justifies the social and environmental destruction generated from the large-scale monocultures. Address the impacts on biodiversity, the response of the ideologues of this lie will be to say that it ensures by the existence of protected areas ... even if they are separated by hundreds of miles. Say the same thing with respect to the hydrological regime ... although the forest plantations and are in different basins. Not to talk about land ... where they have no arguments and appeal to the argument of employment generation (Lie 8) to hide the social impacts of plantations, which will show the difference between a forest (where people live) and a plantation (where people are expelled).
The bottom line is that this argument seeks to justify a logic that divorces the production of conservation: indeed, using conservation as an excuse to enable the destruction. The existence of protected forest areas (which effectively protect the soil, flora, fauna and regulate the hydrological cycle) becomes the justification for implementing large-scale monocultures (in this case, trees) that destroy all the natural resources and rights and livelihoods of local populations.
Since the only way to ensure social and environmental sustainability is to integrate conservation into production processes (and not separated into watertight compartments), these monoculture tree can in no way be considered as integrating the forest system therefore, their impacts should be analyzed separately, as with any other agricultural crop.
Ricardo Carrere (1999), "Ten Answers To Ten Lies", World Rainforest Movement Tropical http://www.wrm.org.uy/inicio.html
0 comments:
Post a Comment