Home
Up

The Sawubona (I see you) "How Green are my Forests" Debate

This is a ongoing debate and will be updated regularly. Any contributions can be sent to sawac@soft.co.za

Philip Owen Starts;

Sawubona!

Lael Bethlehem replies :

John Burrows adds;

Ms Lael Bethlehem's indignant retort to SAWAC's statements regarding the forestry industry deserves a reply.

No clear-thinking South African will deny that the forestry industry plays an essential role in the economy of this country, both as an earner of foreign currency, and as an important supplier of products and employment. We cannot do without a well-run and tightly-controlled forestry industry. That is accepted.

But what most clear-thinking and well-informed South Africans strongly object to  is the forestry industry's continued propaganda campaign to promote itself as a champion of environmental conservation. They continually tell us how they are setting aside and protecting sensitive areas, how the pine forests support such a rich array of birds and animals, how they spend so much money on supporting conservation projects, how they are protecting the indigenous forests, how they receive so many conservation awards, etc., etc.

But all those people living among or near these forests know that the bottom line is that the commercial plantations are destroying our mountain grasslands and drying up the rivers. This is an inescapable fact which no amount of sweet-talking by the forestry industry can ever change. The Goebbels of the forestry industry, ably led by Drs John Scotcher (SAPPI) and Dick van der Zel (DWAF), are masters at painting a rosy picture by the use of half truths and glaring omissions.

Dr Scotcher (in Veld & Flora 81(2), 1995) makes several misleading statements. He states that the forestry industry only occupies 1.2% of South Africa, failing to point out that that 1.2% is almost all situated in mountain sourveld grassland which it is progressively replacing and destroying. As some form of justification, he then favourably compares the timber plantations to heavily grazed grasslands (stock farming?). He fails to realise that, even in the most heavily grazed mountain grasslands, there remains ten times the floral diversity than you find in a pine plantation. While water run-off in pine plantations may well be much less than that of overgrazed grassland, the water consumption of those same plantations is considerably higher than that of the grazed grasslands. The islands of conserved grassland set aside by the industry are almost all surrounded by a sea of exotic plantations, effectively impeding the transfer of botanical genetic material from one island to another. Most of the low-profile natural areas (cliffs, riverine areas out of the public eye, small inaccessible areas) are sadly neglected and are invariably choked with invader plants (bugweed, pines). Conversely, those areas which are clearly in view of the public, such as along main roads and near forestry offices, receive much attention and are paraded for all to see - the 'window-dressing' we are all familiar with.

But behind the window-dressing, all is not well. In the case of SAPPI, a radical change in management with the contracting-out of all silivicultural operations to private enterprise, has seen a marked decline in conservation activities in just the short time that this change has been in place. We know that profit is the bottom line for any commercial company and, sadly, with the decline in the economy and SAPPI's fortunes, conservation is the first to suffer. Apart from the obvious effects of increased alien plant infestations and the neglect of some conservation areas, the reduction in road maintenance means more silt flowing into our rivers and the reduction in SAPPI managment staff means that fewer people have more and more land to control - sometimes the tasks are just too great and the natural areas are the first to suffer.

What is most galling about the forestry debate is that the forestry industry refuses to acknowledge that their industry is having a severe detrimental effect upon the environment. It is always "we are planting up thousands more hectares of grassland but ......." and then trot off examples of how much worse maize farming or urban development is for the environment, rather like a child, who is caught doing something wrong, will point to his friend and indignantly exclaim that he/she is doing something much worse. It still doesn't make it right and trying to shift the spotlight on to other industries is just not a responsible attitude.

Which takes me on to the crux of my argument. What we need more than anything in the forestry industry is a moral obligation to place environmental issues at the top of the priority list within upper forestry management so that the industry develops a genuine code of ethics which is driven and maintained from within the industry - not merely adopted as a survival tactic to pacify criticisim from a concerned public. If the industry had such a moral ethic entrenched in its policy, all natural areas would receive the attention they deserve and not only those that a critical public may encounter. This ethic should pervade all ranks of the industry and be something that it regards as a national responsibility for generations to come. At the moment environmental conservation is just a gut response to mounting international pressure to reform and as long as the forestry companies are seen to be doing something, positive, they consider that to be good enough. It is not about sponsoring conservation projects away from forestry areas (although that does help) - it is about getting their own house in order first. And their own house is far from being in order. If they spent more time genuinely sorting out their own problems, they would have little or no critcism levelled against them and they would not need to mount this intensive propaganda campaign which probably costs more than the conservation work would in the first place.

Should anyone wish to query my comments and observations, they are welcome to come and see me and I will conduct them on a personalised tour of all the ugly little areas hidden away from public scrutiny.

I can be contacted at (013) 235 3851 (phone & fax).

John Burrows    

Lael Bethlehem retorts

Mr Burrows makes some interesting points in his email. There may indeed be
reason to be concerned about the activities of contractors and whether the
companies are taking sufficient responsibility for their actions and I would
like to hear the companies' response to this. But I think some of the other
points are very difficult to sustain, especially in light of the
environmental management that has to be maintained in order to achieve
international certification, especially from the FSC. Most importantly I
think it is important to have a reasoned debate which takes account of both
sides of the argument. Mr. Burrows offers the first glimse of this. I think
his contribution is more more rational than what we have seen from Mr. Owen.

But please Mr. Burrows, lets not descend into referring to colleagues as
'Goebbels'. This is really highly offensive. The tendency to denegrate
individuals rather than adressing the topic is, I think, a sign of a weak
argument. In addition, it is morally questionable. Especially when the
reference is to a Nazi.

For the record, Dr van der Zel has retired and no longer works for DWAF.    
Lael Bethlehem
Chief Director: Forestry
Department of Water Affairs and Forestry

John McAllister Joins

I agree 100% that the Timber Industry's claim to being these great conservationists is at the heart of the matter. Conservationists and the Timber Indusrtry do have some common ground, but this cannot be reached as long as the Industry feels that it is in the conservation business. The Industry does do some good work to mitigate the damage that they do, even some from Sappi (e.g. Stuart Meikle) but this is at best only mitigation and straight forward window dressing at worst.

I have been involved in many plantation audits and I'm sure there are many in the Timber Industry that will tell you that my comments have been as fair as possible. There are no doubt many others who will tell you that I am a green lunatic, but then they are not worth dicussing anyway! Ms Bethlehem mentions FSC certification. I have been involved in this too, but unfortunately the FSC's standards, as laudable as they are, concentrate on protecting natural forests. No mention is made of grasslands. As conservationists we cannot condone the protection of one biome at the expense of another - both grasslands and forests play equally important roles in making this planet of our habitable for all species, including man.

John McAllister

John Burrows apologises

In response to the strong backlash to my statement regarding "the Goebbels of the forestry industry", I would like to tender my sincere and unreserved apologies to both Dr John Scotcher and Dr Dick van der Zel, for any hurt, embarassment or slight on their characters that my statement may have implied. It was certainly never my intention to do so and was only a term used to illustrate a well organised and motivated wing of forestry used to champion their cause. My apologies are extend to all others who feel that I have damaged their characters in any way, including Ms Lael Bethlehem

John Burrows