>John Bliss wrote, "I am looking for data regarding public views on
tree plantations".
Here are the responses to a recent request I put on FOREST for views
on tree farms used by environmental groups. These may be of some
interest in the current context.
The views are not mine; but I have removed the original author's names
to respect their confidence. Original authors may wish to add comments
of their own.
There may be some formatting problems. Sorry I did the best I could!
with thanks.
geoff dean 8-)
====================
Original request
> Greetings from the land down under the land down under!
> Can members indicate for me arguments that the environmental
>movement, or others, have put up against tree farms / plantations?
> a) most commonly
> b) most effectively
>
>Comments / references / arguments are all welcome, and appreciated.
============================
response 1
Tree farms are not real forests. If you want to conserve natural
forests, then you will have many qualms about turning the entire
landscape over to plantations.
A convenient point of entry into the literature would be ...
William Alverson, walter Kuhlmann and Donald Waller. 1994. Wild
Forests: Conservation Biology and Public Policy. Washington, DC:
Island Press.
===============
response 2
Initial thoughts on the arguments against tree farms from the UK
angle.
Firstly, they are unsightly, more often than not they are single
species blocks in regular shapes or straight line planting. We have
strong feelings against Sitka and Norway Spruce up here.
Secondly, the lack of diversity of the plantations makes for
ecologically poor habitats, relative to what could be there, i.e.
moorland or native 'broadleaf' woodlands. This diversity problem is
being taken on board by the Forest Authority at the moment
(Government body) and restructuring plans are being drawn up for all
there woodlands along environmentally sound guidelines.
Restructuring involves the reshaping of coupes and the promotion of a
diversity of age structures interlaced with broadleaf plantings and
wide rides etc. etc.
Thirdly I think the British people are used to a certain type of
landscape; few trees in small areas or at least a very open feel to
woodlands, always finding a viewpoint within a half hour walk,
somewhere to take in the surrounding countryside.
This contrasts very strongly with the forests of North America that I
have visited, where I was walking for two days in Cedar/Hemlock forest
and only got one view across the valley, purely because of a
landslide.
==================
response 3
The arguments against plantations are many and various, I will try to
recall some for you.
Plantations tend to be of one species and the is unnatural and
"challenges the laws of nature" . More rationally a large
concentration of one species will provide a food source for an insect
predator that the same species scattered through a forest would not.
This will allow the predator to escalate in numbers to an extent that it
will devestate the plantation species and then after the plantation
species is consumed, inflict severe collatoral damage on adjacent
forest species because of high populations of starving insects.
Fungal agents too are seen as having a better chance to destroy a
stand of trees if it is of one species and therfore potential hosts are
close and liable to easy transfer of infection. Armillaria in pine
established after clearing of native forest might be an example of this.
With plantations the stands also tend to be of one age. This too is
unnatural and makes the forest vulnerable to disaster. Not just from
insect predation menyioned above but from physical damage such
as windthrow, snow damage hail damage which might damage all
trees in the stand or because the stand is uniform exacerbate the
damage.
Plantations are also "biological Deserts" ie because they are of one
species they will by definition exclude the rich and diverse flora and
fauna that lived on the site before the plantation was planted.
Monocultures (particularly radiata pine ) destroy the site, "acidify" the
soil. I am not a soil scientist so don't know how to counter that one.
The trouble with these criticisms is that although I don't believe that
we should reject plantations as a management system based on such
doomsday scenarios; never-the-less there is some truth in what they
say. Also such arguments leave the plantation manager on the
defensive and having to prove that something will not happen.
Proving the negative is far harder than making the kind of buckshot
(ie fire off a lot of arguments, one will hit something) accusations that
environmentalists do.
Arguments against all this --- An emminent pathologist (de Gryse)
officially warned the NZ government against planting radiata pine in
1955, forecasting disaster. The world is still waiting. That is ask the
dooms-sayers for examples where these problems have occurred.
Point to natural examples of even-aged monocultures (eg E. regnans
after the 1939 fires, much of the Douglas fir in PNW US and Canada
for the same reason) that do OK and deny that evenaged
monocultures are inherently unnatural. Point to other crops that are
even more of a monoculture and which do not suffer disasters (eg
sugar cane, wheat and other cereals). Point out that most problems
come when crops are grown under stress and that your silviculture,
sprays etc ensure a vigorous crop.
Point out that plantations are not biological deserts; because of
firebreaks riparian strips a lot of animals including the cute and
cuddlies live there. Also that forest roads are used for recreational
access and forest owners have developed th recreational facilities.
Finally point out that forestry, even plantation forestry is a long term
business and the profit and forest health coincide and that forests are
safer being managed than left to nature.
====================
response 4
This is a good question, but one which I think will frustrate you. For
example, one argument the enviros use is that plantations are
"monocultures", which they believe by definition are bad. Have you
ever read George Orwell's "Animal Farm"? When the animals are
chanting "four legs good, two legs bad", that is roughly the level of
intelligence that enviros bring to this discussion:"biodiversity good,
monoculture bad."
Pointing out to them that most agriculture crops in the world are
grown as "monocultures" does no good at all. Certainly there is a
risk if huge areas are planted with the same species, they may be
more subject to damage from insects or disease, but isn't that the
risk assumed by the company involved? There is no good counter-
argument to this issue, because there is no logic supporting it to
begin with-- it is based primarily on emotion.
Probably the most effective argument against plantations is in areas
where virgin native forests are eliminated and replaced with
plantations.
Certainly, this is an example of reducing biodiversity, and I can at
least understand their objections; but how they can apply the same
argument to places like New Zealand or Chile where plantations
are being established almost entirely in areas that had been cleared
generations ago, I can't understand.
================
response 5
In the UK during the seventies and eighties, the Forestry Commission
was under siege from the general public due to their extensive
expansion of plantations into the landscapes of England and Scotland.
Their battle could be ours in the future as the likely and most inevitable
further expansion of plantations into varst areas of currently cleared
agricultural land takes place.
The UK solution has been to "design" forests that fit the landscape
both ecologically and visually through use of a combination of native
and exotic species group plantings. We have some information on
this approach in our library [see Great Britain Forestry Commission,
"Lowland Landscape Design" (F63 (41)GRE) and Lucas Oliver,
"The Design of Lorest Landscapes" F63(41)LUC ].
====================
response 6
Although I don't have a direct answer to your tree farm question I do
have a comment.
I am always amazed that people will rant and rave about loss of
biodiversity caused by tree farms when, most likely, right next to the
tree farm is an agricultural field that may be federally subsidized
and not really needed. Talk about effects on biodiversity.
I would also bet that many if not most of the people that do not like
tree farms live in houses made of wood and at least some of them
like to "wood work" as a hobby. If not tree farms, then where will our
homes come from?
==================
response 7
Here are a few "tongue-in-cheek" arguments that have put up against
tree farms. Some come from the internet. These are not (a) the most
common or (b) the most effective. However, I think you might enjoy
some of these "arguments."
(1) Tree farms are not natural.
Some believe that it is more natural to collect firewood from
native woods than to establish firewood plantations on ex-farmland.
Native people have been collecting firewood from natural woods
since the dawn of man. To establish firewood plantations to supply energy for
cooking and heating is not natural.
(2) Plastic is recyclable but wood from tree farms is not.
I have been told that it is better to make plastic pallets than to establish
tree farms (to supply wood for pallets). Wooden pallets are not usually
recycled into other products while old plastic pallets can be recycled
into other products.
(3) Trees grow too slow in tree farms. Certain annual monocrops
can produce more fiber per hectare.
I have been told that one species produces 4 times more paper per
hectare than trees. I have been told that certain crop species do not
require any chemicals to grow a healthy monoculture.
(4) Tree farms grow too fast and therefore use water.
I have been told that tree farms can produce 15 to 75 cubic metres/
hectare/year.
(5) It is better to import wood from natural stands from other countries
than to establish tree farms to supply most domestic wood needs.
I have been told that the desirable landscape for the southern United
States is to have 0% of our landbase in pine plantations (much like it
was before the year 1500).
(6) It is better to grow farm crops than to establish tree farms which
may be fertilized.
Some fertilisers used in tree farms may leach or are highly
vulnerable to atmospheric loss.
(7) Establishing tree farms on agricultural land can cause air pollution.
Some trees give off volatile organic compounds. I have been told
that in some regions of the US, tree emmissions exceed air quality
standards.
(8) Burning wood produced from tree farms can cause smoke.
I have been told that it is better to heat with electricity (from nuclear
fuel or petroleum) than to heat with wood. The wood smoke can
cause be irritating to the eyes.
(9) Some chemicals used in tree farms might break down into
formaldehyde.
I have been told that some herbicides used in tree farms can (at high rates)
slow the growth of certain ectomycorrhizal fungi in
vitro.
===================
response 8 [I was sent a press release]
GREENPEACE PRESS RELEASE ************************
NEW ZEALAND PLANTATION FORESTS UNSUSTAINABLE
AUCKLAND, August 25, 1994 (GP) The New Zealand tree plantation
industry unsustainable and may be breaching the international
biodiversity treaty, according to a Greenpeace report launched this
week. The key problem is the industry's reliance on largescale
plantations of a single exotic species, radiata pine.
"We can no longer ignore the costs to the environment or the
economy as a whole. Future generations will pay for chemical
pollution, nutrient-stripped soil, disappearing wildlife, sick ecosystems
and boring landscapes and less jobs," says Grant Rosoman, forests
campaigner and author of The Plantation Effect.
"Putting all our eggs in the monoculture basket does not make
sense - for our bank balance or the good of the land. We need to
act now to create a truly sustainable forest industry, by planting mixed
species and encouraging growth of native trees, as recommended by the World
Bank and the International Tropical Timber Organisation."
New Zealand is legally bound to protect biodiversity, under the
international Biological Diversity Convention signed at the Rio Earth
Summit in 1992, and ratified by the Government last year. Current
practices contravene the provisions of the Convention.
Greenpeace urges the plantation industry to adopt guidelines to
safeguard the future of the industry and satisfy public demand for
clean production and environmentally sound practices.
"The purpose of the report is to widen the debate. Greenpeace
welcomes the industry's willingness to address the problems. The
long-term aim should be economic and ecological sustainability,"
says Rosoman. This includes restoring native forests, mimicking
nature with mixed species plantations and ensuring that soil, water
and air quality are maintained.
Among the report's findings:
* Monocultures are more susceptible to pests and diseases
* plantations risk poor health due to environmental stress from soil
nutrient decline, climate change and increase in UVB light
* Soil nutrients are being lost
* Forestry machinery causes sedimentation in waterways and
subsequent damage to aquatic life
* Catchments planted in pines reduce water yield
* Toxic chemicals such as pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, timber
preservation treatments, and chlorine used in pulp and paper
factories are poisoning the environment
* Some bird species are absent from pine plantations
* Exotic monocultures increase fire risk
* Exotic trees invade native grasslands, eg Tongariro National Park
Greenpeace's preliminary guidelines call for:
* full landscape assessment taking account of ecological, social and
economic aspects;
* consultation with local communities;
* sustainable yield of timber harvest that prevents loss of soil and
nutrients;
* mixed planting of native and exotic species;
* maintenance of soil, water, and air quality;
* zero discharge of toxic and/or bio-accumulative persistent substance
in the lifecycle of forests and forest products;
* independent monitoring
The report describes several ecoforestry and alternative tree systems
including indigenous species plantations - kauri and totara can
maintain soil and water values; mixed special purpose exotic species
plantings; agroforestry systems: planting of pastoral land with mixed
tree species to improve productivity and reduce erosion;
reafforestation with mixed special purpose species; mixed tree
cropping woodlands such as timber, nuts, fruit, honey, herbs and
fungi; west Canadian ecoforestry; traditional Asian and pacific Island
forest systems.
For copies of the report and further information, contact Grant
Rosoman, Greenpeace New Zealand, 22 York St, Parnell, Auckland
phone +64 9 377 6128,
fax +64 9 303 2676
Tel home +64 9 372 8828)
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0