Issue 134 - September 2008

All “international days” concern problematic issues of global importance that need to be addressed by society as a whole. The expansion of tree monocultures has resulted in so many social and environmental impacts that it gave rise to the idea of establishing an International Day to raise the issue at the global level. The date of September 21st was chosen following the lead from local networks in Brazil, who in 2004 decided to establish this date –which is Tree Day in that country- as a day of struggle against tree monocultures.

Depletion of water sources, changes in flora and fauna, loss of land, human rights violations, destruction of the social fabric: these are just some of the problems brought about by tree monocultures. Those who know more about this than anyone else are the local communities who have suffered this invasion first hand, but whose protests and struggles are systematically silenced by powerful corporations and their allies.

For local communities that live in forested areas, the difference between a forest and a tree monoculture is very clear. Unfortunately, this clarity is not shared by many forestry professionals, whose training has been based on the concept that tree plantations are forests and carry out similar functions. This is no minor matter, because it is forestry professionals who advise governments, since governments believe that forestry professionals – and not local communities – are the experts on this subject. And based on this advice, governments formulate and implement ambitious forestry plans that often entail the establishment of vast stretches of monoculture tree plantations, which have nothing in common with forests.

Planting trees is generally considered to be a positive action. The act of planting a tree – either at a school or in a peasant community – in many societies symbolizes concern for nature and a contribution by the present generation to future ones. In addition to this symbolic aspect, many tree plantations are indeed positive, in particular when they are made by decision of the communities themselves to cover their needs, for example in the case of fruit trees or woody species that serve to address other needs for firewood, fibres, seeds, flowers, medicines, shade, shelter, etc. Many of these plantations are in fact agro-forestry systems in themselves, often part of traditional local ecosystem management systems.

In South-Western Cameroon, near Kribi, two giant industrial plantations cover a total area of 62,000 hectares. One of them, HEVECAM, is a rubber tree monoculture belonging to the Singapore-based GMG group, while the other, SOCAPALM, is an oil palm plantation, property of the French group Bolloré.

In 1926, Firestone Tire & Rubber Company signed a 99-year contract with the government to lease one million acres [approximately 405,000 hecatares] of land for the establishment of a rubber plantation. The total concession area of Firestone represents 4% of Liberia’s territory and nearly 10% of its arable land. Firestone currently occupies some 240 square miles [approx. 62,000 hs] of the concession with about 7,000 employees, most of whom are rubber tappers. There are also approximately another 4,000 laborers who work for the company with no legal status hence with no benefits from the company, such as health and education for their families. Also, an additional some 4,000 people work on the plantation for the tappers and therefore have no legal status with the company.

Monoculture is against nature, which is diverse. That is why an unnatural system like industrial plantations of tree monocultures triggers off several negative impacts. One of them is fire.

In North East Cambodia different indigenous groups have lived for centuries, preserving an immense and extremely diverse forest ecosystem, maintained intact until the recent decades, when massive forest exploitation started. Indigenous agricultural practices, as in many other forest-covered areas in the world, have contributed to maintain biodiversity and are among the most sustainable so far known. The subversion of this ecological and social system is full of consequences for indigenous communities and women, as this Bunong woman from Mondulkiri explains:

Indonesia is the world's second largest palm oil producer; together with Malaysia they account for about 80 percent of global palm-oil production. With actually around 6 million hectares of land planted with oil palm, Indonesia plans a significant expansion which is set to cover up to 20 million hectares by 2020. Oil palm expansion has implied and implies the occupation of customary lands by companies to first “clear the land” (meaning deforestation) and then develop an oil palm plantation. Land occupation means in turn the displacement of local communities from their land thus triggering off several conflicts –about 400 in the whole of the country according to Indonesian NGO Sawit Watch.

In Malaysia, palm oil expansion goes hand in hand with deforestation –despite government officials claiming otherwise. A press release issued by Sahabat Alam Malaysia [SAM] Friends of the Earth, Malaysia, on August 6, 2008, reveals that some 2.8 million ha of largely forest land in Sarawak has been handed out for plantation concessions of mainly oil palm and fast-growing pulpwood trees.

The road linking Trang and Krabi in southern Thailand is an example of what economists call development. What used to be lush tropical forest has been converted into endless rows of either oil palm or rubber trees. The monotony is only broken here and there by a few houses and shops surrounded by a sea of tree monocultures. At the end of the road, shrimp farms occupy the place of mangrove forests, and only a thin row of mangrove trees bordering the river have been spared from destruction. The monoculture model appears to have defeated the rich diversity of the region.

The Patagonia region of Argentina accounts for only 4% of the country’s tree plantations. This limited development of the sector is viewed by the Argentine authorities and forestry industry as a source of vast possibilities: four million hectares of potential plantation land divided among the provinces of Neuquén, Río Negro and Chubut. Both the national and regional authorities are directing their efforts towards tapping this potential. After gathering in April in Esquel, Chubut for the First Coordinating Meeting of the Patagonian Regional Forestry Plan, they are now gearing up for the 2009 World Forestry Congress to be held in Buenos Aires, envisioned as a showcase that will draw foreign investors, consultants and business delegations to the country.

Imagine an area the size of 500,000 football fields planted with a single species of tree. Is it a forest? No, it is a green desert: no people, no water, no other plants. A few years from now, this will be the landscape in Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil’s southernmost state, where three companies are concentrating pulp production, leading to significant social and environmental damages. The state of Rio Grande do Sul, like Uruguay to the south and Argentina to the west, forms part of an ecosystem known as the Pampas: fertile lowlands with a unique biodiversity encompassing hundreds of birds and mammals found nowhere else on earth. The subsoil of this region contains one of the largest freshwater reserves in South America.

In Latin America, the Chilean case is presented as a successful forestry model, in spite of the fact that many Chilean organizations – in particular Mapuche indigenous organizations – have for years now been denouncing the impacts of large eucalyptus and pine plantations in southern Chile. However, this has not prevented well-paid forestry consultants from repeating the same lies and from convincing governments of other countries (Peru and Ecuador are the most recent cases), to follow the “successful” Chilean path. As part of the advertising package, the model’s promoters include its so-called capacity to generate jobs in the plantations and consequently an improvement of the inhabitants’ quality of life.

At a time when large corporate interests are gaining control over ever more land and resources, it is refreshing to hear news of victories won through the tenacious resistance of local communities.

Asia Pulp and Paper is probably the most controversial paper company in the world. It has destroyed vast areas of forest in Sumatra and replaced hundreds of thousands of hectares with monoculture plantations. In December 2007, the Forest Stewardship Council announced its "dissociation" from APP after the company starting using the FSC logo. FSC issued a statement saying that it has "a duty to protect the good will and integrity associated with its name and logo for consumers and for our trusted partners and members." At last, it appeared, FSC had noticed it is greenwashing environmentally and socially destructive companies. Unfortunately, the dissociation from APP remains a one-off.

Approximately five years ago, Aracruz obtained a “green” quality label for its plantations in the extreme south of Bahia. This is a very important conquest for the Company as this certification implies, among other things, that the Company is working in an ecologically and socially correct manner, respecting all municipal, state and federal environmental laws. Such a label is essential for the Company’s exports because with it, it gains enormous prestige abroad.