|
|
|
ARE ALL TREES GREEN?This article comprises two parts - the original article as published, as well as the reply to that article, which was also published in the same magazine. The authors, publications and dates of publication are noted along with the respective articles. To aid in locating the various bits, please make use of the following links;
ARE ALL TREES GREEN?The spotlight on forestryTEXT BY MARIA JOHNS
The South African forestry industry would like us to
believe that their plantations are good for the environment. Yet conservationist’s
agrue that the same plantations destroy biodiversity, squander our precious water and
could be a threat to ecotourism. They are nothing but “green deserts”, argue
some concerned individuals, but “green wastelands” would be more apt than a
comparison with deserts – there is more biodiversity in a few square meters of the
Namib desert than in an entire plantation. The
way forestry is regulated, foresters could plant up the final remaining 1% of grassland
left, destroy all the red data species contained in this threatened biome and there is
nothing in the way the law is currently practised, to prevent them from doing so. Don’t plant a tree for Abor Day. Pull one
out! Says Professor Braam van Wyk, botanist and campaigner for biodiversity. A heresy?
Maybe it would sound to some, but no one loves trees more than Braam van Wyk and he is
simply debunking the blanket notion that all trees are good. To him this is not only
naïve but dangerous – it may be deforestation that is destroying biodiversity in the Amazon rainforest but in S.A. biodiversity
is being destroyed by to many exotic trees in the form of plantations. “By all means plant some indigenous trees in
your garden to attract birds”, says van Wyk. “ Plant trees where trees used to
occur, pull out all the alien invaders such as Syringa, Cluster and Black wattle,
especially when they occur close to rivers and wetlands. and don’t be seduced by
those green blankets of Pine and Eucalyptus trees that almost entirely smother the Eastern
Transvaal escarpment. That could be one of South Africa’s biggest environmental
catastrophes.” According to botanist Peta Masson, photographs of the Sabierea last century showed
extensive grasslands and a virtual absence of plantations. Before 1875 these beautiful
grasslands were home to a host of species with high levels of endemism and diversity. (
the majority of the hundred and ten escarpment endemics are montane grassland species.) The blue swallow, Hirundo angolensis, and Broad
tailed warbler, Schoenicola Brevirostris, found almost exclusively in grasslands, were not
endangered then. Also amongst the indigenous Flora and Fauna that once thrived but are now
rare, are plants such as Clivia Caulescens, Gladiolus Exiguus Var. Mirantha and Watsonia
Transvaalensis, and animals such as the Oribi, Ourebla Ourebi, Mountain Reedbuck, Redunca
Fulvoruvula and Gunnings Golden Mole, Ambiysomus Gunningi. Then, in 1875, commercial afforestation began.
Little by little, the pretty alpine highlands turned into a monotonous green. The first to
complain were local farmers, not about biodiversity, but about the threat to their
lifeblood water. By 1915 farmers have noticed decreased water runoff, and although these
complaints intensified during the drought of the 1960’s, it was not until 1972 that
the department was ready to respond with its afforestation permit system (aps). The
criteria for permits, however, were based on self confessed “crude”
understanding of the impact of afforestation on water runoff at the time. The department of Water affairs and forestry
always intended to update the system but never did. Biodiversity never came into the
equation at all. It is now paid lipservice as a sort of moral optional extra, but the
issuing of the permit is in no way legally constrained by the rarity of species on the
land. In the Transvaal, approximately 40% of the
afforestation permits were issued on land supporting red data species. For example, 17
permits given were for land supporting Wattle Crane, Grus Carunculata, nesting sites and
13 supporting Blue Swallow nesting sites. Only 1000 Wattle Crane pares are left in South
Africa, with a mere 30 occurring in the Transvaal. Only 29 Blue Swallow nests remain in
the province. Now South Africa has 1.3 million hectares under
commercial afforestation and there is a major drive to double this figure by early next
century. But we only have a scant 1% of our high altitude grasslands left and pessimists
say none will be left after this fresh onslaught! Many conservationists regard this aggressive
afforestation as “the biggest environmental catastrophe” facing South Africa
today in terms of squandering precious water, destroying priceless biodiversity, spoiling
the natural beauty so important to the ecotourism industry and place an even greater
stress on rural communities dependant on perennially flowing rivers. Few would argue that there should be no
plantations at all and even the watchdog
wildlife society considers commercial afforestation a legitimate activity, if managed
correctly. However, it is own study of forestry practices, as well as a study commissioned
by the Botanical society of South Africa and carried out by Peta Masson, indicates serious
shortcomings. 50% of threatened plants in the Transvaal and 43%
in Natal occur in areas with “afforestation potential”. The rapid decline of
indicator species such as the Blue Swallow should serve as a warning. In Mozambique, 30 000 hectares of sensitive
coastal grasslands and wetlands are to be planted with exotic trees by Sappi, one of the
forestry giants in South Africa. Conservationists are angry that no proper environmental
impact study has been done. Sappi says no wetlands are present, only “marshy
pans”. Comments such as these speak for themselves, for what are marshlands and pans
other than wetlands? Approx. 50 000 hectares of Eliot/Maclear districts
in the north eastern cape have been afforested by Mondi, the other privately owned big
player in the forestry stakes, without a thorough survey of the region beforehand, claims
some conservationists. By 1995 the figure could be 100 000 hectares. Mondi retorts that it
has a ongoing study, fair enough, but what really irks is the “plant first, study
later” approach. The water research commission (WRC) claims that
forestry will have a positive effect on the eastern cape, helping veld recover from
grazing pressure. However a recent study from China shows plantations have a negative
effect on soil fertility. This is borne out by the forestry industry itself. A botanist elaborates on the effect of Pine and
Eucalyptus trees “they acidify soil, devour nutrients and leach substances into the
soil that repel other plants. So micro-organisms in plantation land are deficient for
years after harvesting. The healthiest soil is found in natural veld” According to hydrologist W.Pitman, exotic
plantations have the following degrading affects compared with natural grasslands : they increase rainfall interception by the
vegetation canopy (grasslands intercept 1.5mm of each rainfall of each rainfall as opposed
to the 10mm of forests) ; they increase water loss through evapotranspiration ; and soil
moisture is than abstracted from increased depths. Andrew Duthie, the wild life
society’s ecologist , expands on this third point “grasslands are dormant in winter and thus they use far less water than
plantations which will grow all year round” The state forestry department claims that each
plantation tree uses only 25L of water a day, but studies carried out by Forestek, a
division of CSIR, indicate that when conditions are dry, Eucalyptus can use 120 litres of
water a day. Pines, which use slightly less water, are still being studied. A key problem
with plantations, therefore is the way they affect the low flow …… of winter.
Forestek has shown this to be significant in the north eastern and eastern Transvaal,
Natal and the Cape where large reductions – as high as 90 to 100 percent (Eucalypts)
and 40 to 60 percent (Pines) in monthly flow occurred as a result of afforestation. When indigenous riparian vegetation is destroyed
and trees are planted right up to the edges of streams or wetlands water flow is badly
effected and this occurred on many older sights before permits were introduced. The
forestry industry lamely admits that we the industry know far too little about how to
manage riparian zones and wetlands in afforested areas. At the moment we are guessing too
much for comfort. The various routes from the highveld cities to the
Kruger Natoinal Park and private game reserves of the eastern Transvaal wind down some
spectacular mountain passes along the eastern Transvaal escarpment, but for most the view
has been reduced to the monotany of regimented plantations. Recently, the Long Tom Pass
has been planted with pine trees and although the splendid narrow cascade of the Long Tom
Waterfall is still visible, when the trees grow the pass could be reduced to yet another
green tunnel. Such appalling visual pollution extends well
beyond the borders of the Transvaal, for the majestic Natal Drakensberg, arguably the
countries greatest range, is also threatened with afforestation. Yet all the forestry
officials can say is that plantations will soften the “barren, grassed or burnt”
grasslands of the Drakensberg. Try telling that to the new bread of European and American
ecotourists who want to see the “barren” savannahs and grassland of the real
Africa, not a cheap imitation of their countries of origin! With
so many justifiable misgivings about forestry, why is there this seemingly drive towards
massive afforestation? Is it just short-term greed? Are the long-term profits so
irresistibly attractive? What are the vested interests behind it? First is the state, including the South African
Forestry Company Ltd (SAFCOL) privatised State forestry), as well as divisional councils
and municipalities which collectively own a hefty 27.4 percent of all plantations. Then
there are the big privately owned corporates - Mondi, Sappi and Hunt Leuchars &Hepburn
HL&H) – With a massive 40 percent, while another 17 percent is owned by smaller
companies and the rest by individuals. When these organisations are asked what argues
them to fly in the face of so much environmental opposition, the answer, smugly given, is
“to meet local demand”. Experts among the forestry antagonists say this is a
lie, the real reason being that large forestry companies have built expensive processing
plants which cannot run at capacity without a healthy export market to supplement the
local market. Sappi and Mondi have between them also acquired interests in seven plants in
Europe. Supplying them requires more trees. Natal, earmarked as the major area of forestry
expansion, may find some relief in the fact that South Africa has been approached by
Chille and Brazil with cheap exotic timber for sale. We are also already importing wood
from Zimbabwe. However, true environmentalism thinks globally, so obtaining exotics from
other countries simply pushes the problem out of our backyards into someone else’s. According to sources in the forestry industry,
exports, mainly of paper pulp, have tripled over the past few years. South Africa
currently exports 30 percent of total production; Sappi sells half of its annual
production on the export market. If,
as some conservationists accuse, South Africa is sacrificing the significant potential of
its biodiversity for foreign exchange, the moguls of industry appear to be backing the
wrong horse. Consider that forestry earned R2 billion in forex in 1992 and employed 125
000 people. And consider also that tourism, even in these difficult political times,
earned R2,5 billion in forex and employed 300 000 people. Leaving aside all other
considerations, is it really worth jeopardising an industry which has the potential to
grow manifold, provide vast numbers of people with jobs, and with reasonable planning have
relatively little impact on sensitive environments for one that would almost certainly
have a terminal effect on certain ecosystems? Conservationists also accuse the industry of
selling out the environment for tax breaks. Although the major tax benefits for forestry
were abolished in 1991, some schemes still exist. According to legal tax expert the large
companies have a system whereby wealthy individuals can
“invest” in forestry by “giving” money to the organisation for
planting trees. The forestry company gets the start up capital and the private person in
return may claim the tax benefit. Until very recently the South African courts resisted
the scheme on the grounds that the scheme did not constitute proper farming. However, a
test case has recently been won. In
the 1970’ies the landowners were able to borrow money at low interest rates for
afforestation but this was discontinued. However, Dr Diek van der Zel, principal scientist
with the Forestry section of the Department of Forestry and Water Affairs, says that this
system will be reinstated in a slightly form. We want to encourage small farmers with a few
spare hectares on their land to plant trees, says Dr van der Zel. He hopes that the new
system will be established within a year and says that interest rates will vary from area
to area. Sappi and Mondi are also encouraging small growers in the homelands to grow trees
by providing free seedlings and support. The impact of afforestation in these marginal,
overpopulated areas is of concern. Even a forestry brochure warns that “good
management requires highly trained people” but, it continues, there are thousands of
hectares of marginal lands on farms that could be planted to timber. If the lands are
marginal then surely they are not ideal for timber? Until
1972 forestry was uncontrolled and even today nearly 70 percent of current plantations are
still not permits. The permits systems introduced in 1972 has proven hopelessly
inadequate, yet in 1993 we are still issuing permits using the same criteria which only
take account of water runoff. Among the many shortcomings of pertinent criteria
in the permit system are that downstream demand is estimated on a subjective basis and
only the total catchment is considered, not highly sensitive sub-catchments and
tributaries. According to an expert, some farms are even classified under the wrong
catchment areas. Furthermore, until 1991, no recognised conservation authority was even
involved in permit assessments. Now, Agriculture and Nature Conservation officials
undertake field visits during which agricultural problems and ecological sensitive areas
are brought to the landowners attention. After that it is a matter of the
individual’s conscience. Only applications greater than a hundred hectares
go to the central committee in Pretoria. Smaller projects are evaluated by local offices
of the Department of Water Affairs. Yet many areas of conservation importance are less
than a hundred hectares in size. As one so typically finds in State and parastatal
circles, buck passing is developed to the point of art. The forestry authorities argue
that plant conservation is nature conservation’s problem, yet nature conservation
departments only have provincial ordinances as legal back up which are superseded by the
bills of parliament that support forestry. Furthermore, nature conservation may only
prosecute for the illegal capture or removal of protected species, but not when this is
connected to a “development action” which incorporates anything from township
development to forestry. Besides having very few “teeth”, nature conservation is
given only one mouth to make an adequate assessment of biodiversity. Many conservationists argue that the new
afforestation projects should be subject to an environmental impact assessment. In many
countries, EIAs are a mandatory feature of land use planning. In the UK, conservation is a
statutory responsibility of the forestry commission. State forestry claims that it carefully analises
new areas to be afforested. So where are the plant samples? They don’t end up in our
herbariums for analysis. It is all a bluff, says a botanist. If biodiversity becomes a part of the legislation
then we are happy to incorporate it when issuing permits. After all, we are merely public
servants implementing whatever is in the law, says Dr van der Zel. Perhaps the most urgent task is to make sure that
all forestry areas come under proper regulation. We would ideally like all the non-permit
areas to be declared permit areas, comments Dr van der Zel. However it appears that permit
application is seen as a mere formality. In at least a third of permit applications, a
nature conservation officer noted that ground-ripping and even planting had commenced
before the permit was finally approved. According to Peta Masson’s study, plantations
are not properly policed. Dr van der Zel says that at least once in the three years for
which a permit is valid, an extension officer is sent out to check compliance with the
permit on both private and SAFCOL plantations. Perhaps the infrequency of visits is
explained by South Africa having only 20 extension officers country wide. Although many transgressions must have been found
(according to the wildlife society and Peta Masson), no prosecutions have ever been made.
Dr van der Zel is very proud of the fact that one prosecution was almost made. The big
company in question deforested the 50 hectares it had illegally planted and prosecution
was therefor not necessary. Anyway, with the penalty of not complying with the permit
being a mere R10 per day of non-compliance following a letter of warning, up to a maximum
of a few thousand rands, it is little wonder that farmers have so little respect for the
permit system. Public pressure has helped encourage Sappi, Mondi
and HL&H to put money into riverine rehabilitation. However conservationists are
warning the public against accepting company propaganda too readily. For example, a
company may say it has left 160 hectares of Kaapsche Hoop, but what about the 10 000
hectares that have already been planted? Or it may boast about blue swallow and Twee
Rivier “gillemientjie” (an endemic fish) protection on 417 hectares in the
eastern Transvaal, but you have to remember that 200 000 hectares are under plantation. While environmental policies are not a feature of
small companies and partnerships, to their credit, the big companies have all developed
environmental codes of conduct and some even do environmental audits. Mondi, for example,
established a clearly defined policy in 1983, and Sappi appointed its first full-time
environmental manager in 1989. HL&H also have an environmental document, including a
workable audit system which was ready this year. Mondi says that the eastern Transvaal has been
overplanted and as fells pre-1972 plantations, it does not replant to the same extent. The
company has 22% of its eastern Transvaal land under conservation and this includes all
areas left unplanted because of proximity to rivers and indigenous forests. Also, the
company is engaging in “enrichment planting” which means planting yellowwood,
black stinkwood and pepper bark trees -100 per 200- hectare estate. Sappi says that all
pre-1972 plantings have been felled and planting practices go way beyond permit
requirements to include biodiversity and natural beauty. Furthermore, Sappi has 32% of its
Transvaal land under conservation management and says the development of detailed
management plans for grassland areas will be boosted during 1993. Both Sappi and Mondi have had areas of ecological
importance registered under the natural heritage site programme but this offers no legal
protection and when challenged to apply for proper legal status for their
“protected” areas both said the bureaucratic rigmarole put them off. Mondi
maintained it was up to the department of environmental affairs to buy any land from them
that it deemed worthy of conservation. In addition, Sappi said that protected areas were
not viable for planting and therefor not under much threat and because so much of its
business was in the export market, it felt pressure from international environmental
groups such as Greenpeace was enough to ensure that protected areas remained protected. The State has produced many different documents on
conservation but a concise one is needed in which practical suggestions are made. Some
documents are downright pie in the sky, waxing lyrical about “landscaping”
plantations to blend aesthetically into mountainsides, when money does not even seem to be
available for basic riparian rehabilitation. The State says it spends “ thousands of rands
of research and management of riparian zones” but aerial survey show many riparian
zone transgressions on state properties, whereas on Sappi and Mondi properties, the
forestry management was seen to be working to the practices stipulated by their permits. The 1989 Strategic forestry development plan for
South Africa by the dept. of forestry says from 1993 to 2010 we will gain nearly 17000ha.
Of plantation a year. Regionally Natal will get 80% of all new afforestation, Transvaal
14% (Eastern and Southern Transvaal already contain over half the plantation ; 514000ha )
and the Cape 6%. Yet a spokesman for Sappi said he did not think their would be much
further afforestation in S.A.. Consevationists are speaking greater reassurance than this,
however, and urg a moratorium an all further planting, particularly in Afro-montain
grasslands, until the conservation status of these areas has been satisfactorily
researched. Forestry often defend itself by saying that it has
planted only 1% of the total land in South Africa, but its 1% is a 100% of certain
habitats (20% of Eastern and South eastern Transvaal are afforested). “We must give forestry credit on one point,
“ says professor Braam van Wyk. “it has conserved indigenous forests.” But
this is not an accuse to feel baie heilig (its
holier than thou) and to use such spurious arguments that forestry is not the same as
importing toxic waste. Forestry has profound effects on the environment, thus good
forestry practises must be mandatory. “Forestry should read the new WHITE PAPER on
a national environmental management system which says protection of ecologicaly sensitive
areas such as grasslands, wetlands and mountain catchment areas should be ensured and
environmental impact assessment should be used in such areas” “Forestry should be planned to minimise
damage. Intergrated environmental management (IEM) should be employed. Water use must be
balanced between all users,” are just some of the recommendations contained in the
paper. Professor Richard Fuggle of the dept.
Environmental studies, UCT, says an EIA and sociological assessment should be done before
any new afforestation takes place. One needs to involve communities and consider socio,
political implications. “If water affairs have adopted IEM for all its activities,
why cant its sister dept. do the same?” asks the wildlife society. Permit criteria should be reviewed to include
biodiversity and scenic considerations in a meaningful way, urges the wildlife society.
The director general of forestry is not legally required to consider nature conservation,
but he is morally obliged to do so, the wildlife society maintains. In fact, legal opinion
obtained by the society has determined that nature conservation is a legitimate criteria
and that if the director general were to indicate in advance that he intended to take
nature conservation, aesthetics and erosion control into consideration, this would be
lawful and the landowner would simply have to accept the director generals decision. A
decision to refuse a permit on the grounds of nature conservation therefore, would have
legal standing. And so the director general have both sufficient evidence of the
importance of biodiversity and the legal standing to act accordingly without statuary
hindrance yet he does nothing. All of us have the right to have our natural
heritage protected and to challenge those whose job it is to do so. It is wrong to see
valuable ecosystems under such huge threat from large scale activities of dubious long
term value to the people of our country. The expanding forestry industry is doing more
harm than good and its time the public cried “enough”!!!!!!! SEPTEMBER /
OCTOBER 1993 VOL. 1 NO. 3
ARE ALL TREES GREEN?
The forestry industry replies
TEXT BY SUSAN CELLIER(for the Environmental Working Group of
the Forestry Council) Critics of
the South African forestry industry would have us think that plantations are merely green
wastelands – a total environmental disaster. A closer look shows that forestry
actually helped to initiate environmental awareness in this country, and that it
contributes significantly to conservation and ecotourism. A renewable resource, trees
improve air quality, purify water, enrich soil and prevent erosion. With its growing
emphasis on waste-paper recycling and its potential for social upliftment through small
grower schemes and through low-cost housing, forestry is an important, environmentally and
socially responsible industry for the new South Africa. ‘Preservation
as an environmental policy is a dead duck – it’s just not possible in the real
world,’ says a prominent environmental economist. ‘Most environmentalists have
finally realised that there are trade-offs.’ In the real world with all its
imperfections we need to find a balance between industry and conservation, development and
preservation. Any change in land-use from natural grassland or bush, whether it is to
maize, sugar-cane or trees, inevitably results in a reduction in biodiversity and also a
change in the type of plants, mammals and birds that live in the area. If we had to import
all of the maize, sugar, wood and paper products we as a society need, how could we ever
hope to afford it? To survive
economically, countries have to strive for self-sufficiency, which means that some land
has to be used for agriculture, forestry, industry and housing. In a country where the
politically disenfranchised majority is clamouring for land reform, demanding a chance to
own and run its own economically viable farms, it is unlikely that a new government will
decide to set aside remaining grasslands for the benefit of overseas ecotourists who want
to see the ‘real Africa’, regardless of the ‘forex’ this could earn. One has only
to look at the ‘African flower garden’ of multi-coloured plastic packets stuck
to the stubble, which is all that is left of the overgrazed grasslands in many areas, and
to watch the rivers run brown and thick with soil to the sea after it rains to know that
South Africa is in big trouble environmentally, and that this trouble comes from many
social, economic and political sources. Human
aspirations and uncontrolled population growth are the real threats to our natural
heritage, not the growth of the forestry industry. ‘Over the next 20 to 30 years, the
industry could double its output,’ says Mike Edwards, executive director of the
Forest Owners Association. But this does not mean we will double the area planted. The
industry has formulated a three-pronged approach to achieving this increased output. ‘First,
the industry’s research into silviculture and tree breeding will dramatically improve
yields from existing areas. All the major forestry companies plus four or five research
institutes and university departments have scientists at work breeding new, superior
clonal hybrids to plant in existing forestry areas, and discovering better methods of site
preparation, weed control and fertilization. The
possibilities for improved yields on existing sites are tremendous –30 to 50 % from
improved site-species matching alone according to Martin Herbert, silviculturist at the Institute for Commercial Forestry Research
( ICFR ).And fertilization at planting can increase the harvest by four to seven tons per
hectare just for wattle bark To that, add anther 65% increase from genetic developments. Reports tree breeder Dave James, “The genetically improved trees grow faster, so an eight year rotation is reduced to five years – in three cycles, you have gained a cycle”. “Second,“ according to Mike Edwards an increase in wood and waste paper recycling will significantly reduce the need to cut down trees to produce our products. The forestry
industry initiated the drive to recycle waste paper in this country by the introduction of
consumer collection schemes to recover paper. According to a report by management
consultant Louis Heyl, some S.A. paper board mills have as much as a 70 to 80% intake of
waste paper, and there is a push to bring others up to this level. The report futher
estimates that, currently in South Africa waste paper utilization is around 600 000 tons
per annum. This represent a utilization rate of nearly 41% of paper and paperboard
consumption and 32% of total production, including exports. Evidence show that there is
still spare capacity at the mills and that more waste paper can be recycled, thus reducing
the need to enlarge forest resources. “third,”
Edward concludes, a maximum of 250 000 to 300 000 hectares could be planted, of which 100
000 hectares has already been planted in the last 3 to 4 years. This new afforestation
will consist largely on extentions to existing areas and also of increased small grower
incentives. But what
about the existing plantations? The question that some concerned people ask is, why
exotics? If we need to farm trees to produce timber, pulp and paper, why cant we use
indigenous species? While there is some sustainable management of southern Cape indigenous
forests for valuable woods for the furniture market, the type of tree needed for a
competitive and profitable industry must grow much faster and straighter, and yield a
higher volume of wood over time than is possible with indigenous trees, says “Doggy”
Kewley, a regional manager in Zululand and chairman of the local Dendrological Society.
Also, indigenous trees are not suitable for pulping, and the areas they flourish in are
limited. For that
matter, maize, rice, sugar-cane and other commercial crops are also species exotic to
South Africa. Exotics in themselves are not bad unless they are allowed to spread
unchecked, and while there have been some bad experiences in the past, especially with
wattle, forestry companies are now extremely careful to control any invasive activity on
the edge of plantations. Surprisingly,
however, even wattle has its good points. Forestry consultant Peter Stratten claims that
this tree, which is accepted by all as being an unusual invasive exotic species, is far
better than any indigenous trees when it comes to providing poles for building huts and
calorific value for cooking. “Where,” he asks, do the interest of rural people,
desperate for building materials and any kind of fuel, figure when environmentalists rage
against wattle plantations? Most recent
afforestation in Natal has been on the North Coast, where Eucalyptus plantations have
replaced sugar-cane. The one time sugar farmer and award winning conservationist Ian
Garland says, “I don’t mind when one mono culture takes over from another. And
in this area the Gum plantations are much better environmentaly because they are not
planted near rivers or on valley bottoms.” Ian Garland
tells a story from his sugar-cane farming days, when he used to keep a stand of gums as a
back up crop if the cane failed. After the gums were felled he planted the area with
sugar-cane and the yield was incredible. He explains, the gum trees bring up trace
elements from the subsoil through their taproots, and subsequently enrich the top soil
through leaf litter. The shading provided by the trees also protect and improve the soil. As part of
forestry conservation effort 50 hectares of Ian Garlands farm has been proclaimed natural
heritage site and another 200 hectares of the catchment a protected wetland area. In 1981
Garland started a rehabilitation project in which he has planted more than 30 000
indigenous trees to date in a effort to re-establish indigenous forest where sugar cane
had eradicated it. In the
opinion of the forestry council, foresters pioneered
environmental conservation in South Africa. They initiated the cape forestry act of 1888,
which helped to lay the foundations for modern management of plantations and protection of
indigenous forests, and which prescribe the first conservation measures. A century later
the forestry industry industry again took the lead with a environmental code of practise
which has been unanimously adopted by the industry. Can any other resource industry in the
country say the same? 20 natural
heritage sites covering more than 30 000 hectares on forestry land conserve catchments,
indigenous forests, rare aloes, cycads and other plant species, examples of specific veld
or plant types, rare wildlife forms and series of caves containing early human artifacts. But apart
from conservation areas, is there any biodiversity in the plantations themselves? Are they
really the “green wastelands” that the are accused of being? A study done by
Deall and Backer in 1989, which studied plantations in the Hazyview Mount Anderson area,
found 1009 different plant species alone. This does not take into account the various
animal and insect species that are also found in plantation areas. When planted
on degraded sites, forestry leads to a improvement in bio diversity, and can provide
organisms with greater protection than they had before. In fact, over 90% of all mammals
expected in the areas where forestry is practised are present, says environmental manager
Ricky Pott, “even elephants”. While Pott
agrees that some of the animals are found only in fenced game reserves or unplanted areas
on forestry land, there is much wild life in the actual plantations themselves. In the
Louwsberg area, warthog, Phacochoerus aethiopicus, kudu, Tragelaphus strepsiceros, and
klipspringer, Oreotragus oreotragus, have recently been seen on newly afforested farms
where they have not been seen for over 50 years. On some plantations reedbuck, Redunca
arundinum, and blesbok, Damaliscus dorcas phillipsi are now so common that they can be
captured for restocking other areas, while oribi, Ourebia ourebi, grey and red duiker,
Sylvicapra grimmia and Cephalophus natalensis, bushbuck, Tragelaphus scriptus, rhebuck,
Pelea capreolus, serval, Felisserval, and bushpig, Potamochoerus porcua are common and
generally thriving. Brown Hyena, Hyaena brunnea, aardvark, Orycteropus afer, and black
backed jackals, Canis mesomelas, are also found. The main
reason suspected for the decrease of the blue swallow, Hirundo atrocaerulea, is the loss
of breeding sites due to afforestation and other forms of land use. environmental staff
explain how the forestry industry has taken steps to ensure that this endangered bird can
survive in forestry areas with the result that stable populations now exist. Forestry
companies set aside land near Kaapschehoop when it was found to contain several nesting
holes, and donated 350 hectares of prime blue swallow habitat to the Natal Parks Board to
increase the size of the Blinkwater Nature Reserve. Where nesting holes are known to occur
they are carefully protected and maintained, while others are being artificially
constructed in open grasslands. Positive
steps taken by forestry companies to protect the endangered wattled crane, Grus
carunculata, include reclaiming wetlands that were drained by previous land-owners,
protecting nests from fire, and guarding nests and chicks. The industry has also been
assisting Dr Allan Abrey of the Umgeni Bird Park by providing the free use of aircraft to
survey nesting sites for occupancy and monitoring of chick development on forestry,
farming and Natal Parks Board land. Special
measures have been taken to protect the palm-nut vulture, Gypohierax angolensis, and the
bald ibis, Geronticus calvus, on forestry property, and colourful birds such as the Narina
trogon, Apaloderma narina, the rare Cape parrot, Poicephalus robustus, and the isolated
Delegorgue’s pigeon, Columba delegorguei, are protected in the indigenous forests
found on forestry land. In Natal, Narina trogons and forest weavers, Ploceus bicolor,
thrive in wattle plantations. Several
plantations have resident pairs of crowned eagles, Stephanoaetus coronatus. Longcrested
eagles, Lophaetus occipitalis, gymnogenes, Polyboroides typus, and jackal, steppe and
forest buzzards, Buteo rufofuscus, B. buteo vulpinus and B. oreophilus, are widely
distributed in the forests. The rare bathawk, Macheyramphus alcumus, favoUrs the Transvaal
forests. Forestry companies are assisting the Animal Rehabilitation Cintre ARC and the
African Raptor Conservation Group, ARCG by providing areas for the return of rehabilitated
raptors. Another creature in danger of extinction, the endemic minnow, Barbustreurensis,
was saved by environmental staff who discovered a remnant population in a small stretch of
the Blyde River and took steps to preserve it. Forestry has
also successfully conserved the southern Cape indigenous forest and , along with
ecologists, is now researching the management of indigenous forest patches within
commercial forestry estates, considering island biogeographic and “corridor”
issues. And back in
the lab, forest scientists are also working on the clonal propagation of four medicinal
tree species – Bersama sp., black stinkwood, Ocotea bullata, assegai, Curtisia
dentata, and pepper bark, Warburgia salutaris – the natural populations of which are
being severely depleted by bark-stripping. These indigenous trees will be produced in
large quantities and distributed widely to protect the natural populations from total
destruction. One of the
main reasons forestry is well placed to conserve biodiversity is that only about 75 per
cent of the land held by the forestry companies will ever be planted up, say environmental
staff. Unplanted areas exceed 400 000 hectares, embracing a vast number of veld types and
species of flora and fauna. Another
criticism of forestry is that it uses valuable water resources. But what crop doesn’t?
The difference between forestry and other agricultural crops is that foresters have
attempted to measure and regulate how much water trees use, while this hasn’t been
done for, say, maize or sugar-cane. A report currently put out by a major company shows
that if 75 per cent of a catchment area is afforested, this will result in a reduction of
average annual runoff of about ten per cent, which is allowable under the current permit
system. But ten per cent is actually a worst – case scenario. Professor Roland
Schulze, Professor of Hydrology at Natal University, says, ‘Afforestation in the
Umgeni Cathment has resulted in only a six per cent decrease in water production, which is
acceptable.’ In an independent EIA carried out for KwaZulu woodlots, the report by
Professor Roland Schulze and Stephan Kienzle of Natal University stated that if
plantations were kept small and were not planted too close to boreholes, streams or
wetlands, water levels should remain unaffected. Forest
owners cannot – and also do not – ignore the downstream users of water; but by
the same token the downstream users cannot assume that the entire cathment area is solely
for their own benefit. In fact, one of the major problems for large storage dams such as
Midmar and Albert Falls in Natal is the effect of small farm dams. There are over 1 000 in
the Umgeni Catchment system, none of which requires a permit. After a dry period the small
dams fill up first and it can take months before these dams spill over to fill the big
dams. This is a far more serious problem to water resource managers than is commercial
forestry. Professor
Peter Roberts, hydrologist and director of the ICFR, says, “Droughts are a recognized
pattern of the South African weather cycle. Hence, the cry that forestry is using to much
water is repeated every drought cycle: 1950, 1960 to 1966, 1982 to 1986 and now again in
1992/1993.” Roberts continues, “Of the total projected water use, forestry
accounts for approximately eight per cent.” The Afforestation Permit System (APS),
which the industry helped to create to regulate itself, not only stipulates the allowable
reduction of water runoff in catchment areas, but also specifies the distance away from
streams and wetlands that trees may be planted, as well as instructions for keeping
riparian zones free of exotic invaders. In fact,
trees play an important part in purifying water and preventing soil erosion. Their roots
bind the soil and their leaves soften the rainfall, letting water drip slowly to the
ground and giving it more time to penetrate the soil instead of racing along and washing
it away. Water finding its way into rivers and boreholes through an underground route is
filtered. Trees also purify the air, absorbing large quantities of carbon dioxide, such as
that produced by cars and coal-burning electricity plants, and producing huge amounts of
oxygen. According to Trees for Africa, one large tree can provide enough oxygen for 40
people for a lifetime. Several
years ago, the World Bank suggested that, if conducted in an environmentally and socially
sensitive manner, an increase in plantation forestry world wide could help to counter the
deforestation taking place in South America by reducing the serious threat the greenhouse
effect poses to our planet’s ecosystem. Another
advantage of trees is that they can grow in relatively poor soil. Says soil scientist
Keith Snyman, a consultant based in Zululand, “In the poor, sandy soils of the
Zululand coastal plain only timber really thrives ; not even sugar-cane does well because
the root system doesn’t go deep enough.” In addition to reducing erosion on
these sites, eucalypts actually improve soil quality through the cycling process where
nutrient – rich top soil is created through mulch. Snyman says that companies are
moving away from burning after harvest for just this reason. Planting
trees is not done haphazardly, says Snyman. Road and drainage plans are implemented and
waterway dimensions are calculated to handle runoff. Soil conservation measures are taken,
such as panel planting, where only selected panels of a slope are ploughed, and in areas
where steep slopes are planted, or where soils are particularly sensitive, aerial
harvesting is practised. “Sky lines are erected – aerial cableways which hoist
timber into the air to prevent soil erosion from trees being dragged along the ground.”
Some scientists within the industry are advocating further conservation measures such as
letting a series of “relief panels” in a plantation lie fallow for six to 18
months to help rejuvenate soil moisture between rotations. In the areas
of KwaZulu where companies have established small growers schemes, the land is often
severely degraded and thus trees can only improve the conditions. Johnson Khoza, an
extension forester, says, “People come to us and say, ‘We used to grow
vegetables here, but they stopped growing; then we grazed cattle here, but now the grass
is gone. This land is finished – if we can get anything out of it now, we will be
happy” and they show us a bare piece of ground.” If the rainfall in the area is
sufficient, the new clonal hybrid eucalyptus will flourish, if weeded properly in the
first year to eliminate competition. People are encouraged to plant crops between the
trees during this first year before canopy cover prevents them from thriving. Legumes are
beneficial to eucalypts because they fix atmospheric nitrogen in the soil,. Because the
people living in these isolated rural areas have few other ways to earn cash, relying on
pensions and money sent by migrant workers, there is
real potential for social upliftment through small growers scemes. Says Khoza, “Some
of these farmers see their one or two hectares of trees as their insurance policy or
pension, and through this small-scale timber production an
informal sector of contractors is starting up, to assist with ploughing and harvesting.” In the
formal sector, forestry employs around 200 000 people; through the multiplier effect, the
livelyhood of more than one million people is linked to forestry. Companies offer inhouse
training to employees and tertiary training is also available. Schools, community centres,
clinics, home-ownership schemes and home-skills advancement projects support forestry
employees. In the new
South Africa, forestry can help meet some basic needs of the country’s burgeoning
population. Members of the industry, along with non government organizations and rural
communities, are exploring ways to make fuelwood, fodder, fruit and medicinal trees and
building poles more widely available, as well as encouraging agroforestry in appropriate
areas. One small company in the Cape has developed a high quality, low-cost wooden housing
kit that could help solve the critical housing shortage. As well as
promoting social upliftment, forestry’s contribution to ecotourism is considerable.
The major portion of the 400 000 hectares of unplanted forestry land include natural areas
such as wetlands, grasslands, indigenous forests and woodlands, and visitor use is
actively encouraged. Indeed, government forestry was instrumental in setting aside
catchment areas, wilderness areas, hiking ways and picnic sites for tourists. The National
Hiking Ways provide 1661 kilometres of paths for hikers, many of which pass through
plantations as well as natural vegetation. During 1992/3, approximately 250 000 people
made use of these trails. Private forestry companies are also pursuing the idea of
extending public use of their lands for hiking, backpacking, horse trails, mountain
biking, picnicking, freshwater angling and overnight accommodation in rustic huts. Let’s
face it. No one coming to South Africa in the ‘90s expects to find Kenya in the
‘20s. In fact, some ecotourists from the United States, especially, would approve of
South Africa’s use of plantation forestry to meet its timber and paper needs. In the
Pacific Northwest US, indigenous old-growth forests are still being logged for commercial
purposes and concerned citizens are calling for plantation forestry to replace this
destruction of one of the country’s most beautiful and important resources. South
Africa has protected its precious indigenous forests, with the help of the forestry
industry. Seen in a
rational light, forestry is not an enemy of the environment – there is no intention
of eradicating the small percentage of remaining ten virgin grasslands in South Africa.
The forestry industry plays an important and constructive role in conservation and the
economy, and has great potential for social upliftment. Trees are a renewable resource,
and the benefits they bring to soil, water and air quality are huge. While
mistakes have been made in the past, the forestry industry is diligently enforcing its
code of practice through regular, in-depth environmental audits on plantation land, and
companies continue to care for and set aside Natural Heritage Sites. Far from being ‘green
wastelands”, forest lands are teeming with life, and contribute to, rather than
detract from, South Africa’s ecotourism potential. Let’s address the real
problems of over-population, over-grazing and the general environmental illiteracy in our
country. That would be a positive step toward preserving our natural heritage. Africa – Environment & Wildlife JANUARY / FEBRUARY 1994 VOL. 2 NO. 1
|
|
