FSC-Watch

An independent observer of the Forest Stewartship Council

How Woodmark certifies Sappi's monocultures but ignores a "stakeholder" in SwazilandTags: Swaziland, Plantations, Soil Association Woodmark

A few weeks ago, I visited Swaziland, as part of a trip with World Rainforest Movement colleagues. We visited Sappi's stinking, polluting Usutu pulp mill and drove through Sappi's pine monocultures - FSC certified by Woodmark.

Sappi_Swaziland_1

Sappi_Swaziland_3

Swaziland is a beautiful country. Unfortunately, it is afflicted by one of the most perverse "aid" projects anywhere in the world. In the 1950s, planting of industrial tree plantations started with funding from the UK's Colonial Development Corporation (now a private equity company). 50 years later it's clear that establishing large scale industrial tree plantations and a pulp mill has failed to lift Swaziland's rural population out of poverty. More than two-thirds of the people in Swaziland live on an income of less than US$1 a day. About one third of the people in Swaziland rely on food aid to survive. Nearly 40 per cent of the population is infected with HIV - one of the highest rates in the world. Life expectancy has fallen to 33 years for men and 35 for women. While we can't put the blame for this entirely on tree plantations, the tree plantations are clearly not helping.

While we were in Swaziland, we met Peter George, an Englishman who has lived in Swaziland since the late 1960s. We visited his small farm on a plot of land next to one of Sappi's plantations, which Sappi refers to as Block X. For more than a decade he had no water on his farm and he stopped farming over a decade ago. He has started legal proceedings against Sappi.

Sappi_Swaziland_4

Sappi_Swaziland_6

About seven per cent of Sappi's plantations in Swaziland burned during 2007.

Woodmark's assessment team met Peter George in March 2006. They didn't visit his farm and they didn't meet him during the 2007 audit of Sappi's operations in Swaziland. Neither have they answered his letter, one of which is available here.

Peter George has written a short history of his farm and how he had to stop farming because no water was available. We've posted it below. It's revealing to compare his version with what Woodmark wrote in the Public Summary of their assessment of Sappi.

Woodmark's Public Summary states:

3.8.3 Summary of main forest stewardship issues raised by stakeholders

A stakeholder consultation was held with the owner of Elangeni Estate Pty Ltd on the 3rd of May 2006 at the Foresters Inn, Mhlambanyatsi. His farm of 79 hectares which borders onto Block X of Usutu Forests was bought in 1975 and is situated below the plantation. There are six streams that originate on Usutu land which flow through his farm. For the period 1975 to 1991 farming activities included the cultivation of vegetables, poultry, rain fed crops and trout.

Negative Issues

Issues raised were as follows:

Due to the planting of pine trees since 1989 by Usutu Forests the natural flow of water in the streams was severely depleted.

During August 2005 timber trucks using the road near the homestead caused degradation to the road surface.

A fire which occurred during October 2005 crossed over from Usutu Forests to Elangeni Estates causing extensive damage on the farm.

Positive Issues

It was stated during the interview that the water flow in the streams is now back to normal.It was also stated that there has been a history of co-operation with Ustutu Forest as well, with regards to the fighting of fires.

Other issues

The issue regarding the reduction of water flow caused by the planting of trees and the subsequent claim is "sub judice" and is therefore under judicial consideration.

And here's Peter George's version of the story.

JUST ADD WATER

A Short Story

Elangeni Farm

A story of S.A.P.P.I. and Vanishing Water

Elangeni Farm, place in the sun, consists of 80 hectares set in the cool highveld of western Swaziland. Blessed with good rainfall and moderate temperatures, Elangeni has supplied vegetables to the Swaziland capital since the 1940's, or until 1990 that is, when the water just went away. This is the story of how it happened. Why it happened is yet to be decided.

Background

In 1975 Peter George bought the derelict Elangeni Farm from Government, and the slow process of creating a passable access road, building a homestead and laying on water began. The road was 'fixed' by using an old Land Rover, the house took a year to build, but water was easy: It ran right to the back door, through a big heated drum and into the house.

Progress

From 1976 old lands were cleared, culverts put into streams and fences erected. One side of the farm is, or was joined by grassland pastures from which streams flow. Existing stands of gum and wattle trees provided firewood and a small income. A few sheep, a half blind sheep dog and two cows made it all look like a farm. And in 1980 the final essential arrived, a wife.

Which Way Now?

Growing timber on 80 hectares was not a prospect, nor was maize on the few lands. But water was plentiful, and vegetables looked promising. The only supermarket wanted vegetables, and later chickens, jam and marmalade. Cabbages looked good, with cool summers and a ready market. So the rocks were dug out, stumps pulled up, and furrows laid on. Irrigation was possible without pumps, using gravity to raise pressure. Production of vegetables built up well, mainly cabbages.

Then Fish

There was so much water that water power looked interesting, but that was about all it was. Output peaked at 5 amps with a car alternator and pelton wheel. But by now tons of piping had arrived from a closed mine, so the idea of fish came up. The Government fisheries dept. was supportive, a dam was built, and trout raising started. Elangeni became a small fish farm. Fingerlings came from South Africa. Ponds near the house, raised fish, with a ready market in hotels and restaurants.

So What Went Wrong?

Well, to put it very simply, the streams dried up! By 1990 the vegetable supply had slowed to nothing and the house supply was well down. The problem seemed to be a climatic one, a bad year or two maybe. But when the streams did not flow even in the rainy season, there had to be a good reason.

The Usual Suspects

At first drought looked a likely cause. But the figures did not support that theory. What about bad luck? Well, even farmers can't blame it all on that! So could the fresh young pine trees all over the grasslands above the farm be the guilt party? These hills, which had been pastures and plough-lands for the local people as long as anyone could remember, had passed to the Usuthu Pulp Co. and been planted to pine the mid 1980's. At the time it was said that conditions might actually get wetter! Protests resulted in the catchment behind the farm not being planted. In retrospect it appears as if what was termed a 'concessionary area' was clearly a wetland sponge.

The alleged drought could not go on forever, and on 13.07.1994 S.A.P.P.I, now the owners, were sent a written complaint. Seven months later S.A.P.P.I wrote back, promising research into the problem. This was scheduled to last 2 years. SAPPI's Environmental Officer mentioned 'an aggressive planting policy' due to the poor nature of the soils. This involved planting all stream banks and all wetlands. Trees died off on shallow soils but did well in most areas. Rainfall averages about 1100MM per year.

Why So Long in Waking Up?

'Blinded by science' is not just a phrase. In 1994 my family was in the United Kingdom, and farming had all but ceased. The 'pressure was off', so to speak. In fact the water pressure had been off completely in most of the streams since 1990. SAPPI's promises of research was sufficient for the time being.

Waking Up

So, just when did Peter wake up?

Well, in 2004, actually. And why? A chance book purchase at a church bazaar provided a copy of 'wood and water' by Prof. C.L. Wicht. While SAPPI was busy doing research into the causes of water loss at Elangeni in the 1990's, Prof Wicht was talking about similar water loss in the 1960's, with remedies: Remove the trees! And where was SAPPI's promised research? Not available in 1997 as promised, nor even in 2007! For Peter perhaps the last straw in the credibility gap was the discovery that SAPPI's Research Officer, who was apparently looking at Elangeni's problem with what turns out to be illegal planting; was in the same year, 1994, listed on an advisory panel in South Africa. And among this panel's regulations was that wetlands and stream banks be left unplanted. This became 'Guidelines' for the S.A. forest industry, printed in the same year. What was good for the South African 'Goose' was clearly too good for the Swaziland 'Gander'.

Quote - 'In outlying areas where the impact would be relatively low' less stringent pollution measures should apply.' Eugene Van As. MD. SAPPI 1990.

Obviously the same went for planting, at least on 'outlying areas'. In the book 'Back to Earth' James Clarke mentions a conference on wetlands held in Sandton in 1980 sponsored by, yes, SAPPI! But then Sandton is not really an outlying area, and by 1989 SAPPI had finished planting up all Elangeni wetlands, which could well be called 'outlying'.

And Now?

By 2004 farming had long ceased. A letter to SAPPI in that year received a reply just over 3 months later, but by then a legal process had started. It was now obvious that other people's streams had dried out, and that it was not always drought that was to blame, or at least not the 12 year one suggested. Clear felling started around 2002, the trees being up to 18 years old. Streams began to flow again. Whether this was due to the long 'drought' breaking, or to farmer's good luck, or maybe the disappearing forest next door remains to be determined by a court of law.

The Situation Now 2007

No support has been offered by either the Swaziland Ministry of Agriculture or the Swaziland Environmental Authority, thought both were approached. F.S.C. was given full details on 03.05.06 at a meeting in Swaziland. Response forms were promised, and arrived five months later. These were returned in Nov. 06, but no reply has been made. A letter of 16.08.07 to Mr. Hellier in UK is unanswered, as is a fax. I understand SAPPI now has FSC certification. The fact that they do not appear to hold a planting permit for block X, the area in question, seems to be of no concern to Woodmark. During a recent conversation, a SAPPI Executive remarked that Peter was thought to have dropped the case for lack of funds. Apart from sound and generous legal advice, no support has been received to date. If matters are to proceed as they should, some sort of support will be needed. Elangeni has deteriorated badly since 1990, but with little left to lose, Peter intends to establish just why the water went away.

By Peter George, Elangeni Farm - 01.11.07

A Last Quote: 'Company's cannot Care', Richard Spoor, Attorney.

Comments

This is the first example that I've heard of from Africa. Who said that there was good work being done in Africa?

Dave Nickarz

The "first" does not mean the "only". There are over 35 FSC certificates in Africa (1.8 million ha of forest certified).
Home work ; Try to figure out the percentage of 1 certificate out of 35.

Happy new year 2008

Ali

There are only three natural forest certificates in Africa, all them highly controversial (a fourth, that of Wijma in Cameroon, was recently and rightly cancelled). Almost all the rest are industrial tree plantations rather than forests, mostly in South Africa and Swaziland, and again mostly highly controversial (see this site for numerous articles about them).

This is not a record for FSC to be proud of - any more than it should be proud of its record elsewhere.

No, Ali, you have to prove that any of them are at all sustainable.

You still haven't provided any examples.

And I've already done my homework.

Cheers,

David Nickarz

David

Happy New Year to all

You either do not understand the FSC system or chose not to read what is written. There is no way of quantitying sustainability so that is why the FSC is using "well managed"

In Africa, management in broader sense is a cliche. It simply does not happen. To have an international scheme verify as many certificates as there are, is a credit to those companies.

Its fine for you because every night you go to bed with a full stoamch, no gun to the head and you have earned more than $ 1 for the day. But that is not the case in Africa.
For 35 FMU in Africa we are rest assured that the people who work on those FMUs are being looked after and are safe. More than can be said for the 10 million hectares of forest and savanna that is out there.

Kenya is a fititng example. The unrest in the cities is driving the people to the forests and conservation areas and i can assure they are doing anything just to keep alive. Guaranteed the environment is taking second place.

Peter Pan









Peter Pan

Now I think I understand why you have chosen a fairy tale pseudonym: because you clearly live in a fairy tale world.

Firstly, despiute the point which FSC watch made earlier - that most the African FSC certificates are actually industrial tree plantations, which is a demonstrable fact - you insist on referring to 35 'FMUs', ie Forest Management Units. Perhaps in your fairy tale world those pesticide-soaked genetically identical monocultures all over southern Africa are 'forests'. If so, you debase the meaning of the word so much that perhaps next you will be arguing for the FSC certification of, say, carparks in Frankfurt.

Secondly, for you to claim that "we are rest assured that the people who work on those FMUs are being looked after and are safe" only shows to me that you have never been there, never been in either any of the certified concessions in the Congo Basin or the plantations in southern Africa. Or maybe you were there as some cosseted consultant or Masters student, shown all the nice things and didn't bother to look or find out what goes on out of sight and where the company PR agents don't take you. If not, you would not have made such an utterly absurd and, again, demonstrably untrue.

Peter Pan, sorry but it's time for you to grow up. The real world might not be as pretty as the fanasty worlsd you live in, but some time you are going to have to stop living in your fairy tale world where you can believe any of the fairy tale stories that the FSC and its apologists such as TFT would like us to believe.

J M Barrie

Hear, hear!

Well said Mr. Barrie.

Mr. Pan,

I was wondering when someone would accuse me of being rich and privileged. I guess I'm wrong because I'm not dealing with genocide or extreme poverty. Good point. Never again will I question the well-managed-ness of any of FSC certificates in Africa.

David Nickarz

Dear Mr. Barrie,

If you are insinuating that the employees of Wijma, CIB and SEFAC are not being looked after and are unsafe, then I disagree. The difference in both working and living conditions between certified and uncertified companies is vast. Go and look.

I can't comment on plantations but this is an example where, in the particular context of the Congo Basin, FSC has succeeded where no-one else has, with the help of 'its apologists'.

If I have interpreted your comment correctly, then you are not appreciating the hard work of many individuals and organisations involved in certification in the region, not to mention the huge investments made by companies to acheive certification. Efforts towards certification need encouragement and support just as much as FSC needs to keep an eye on its standards.

Armchair internet criticism should be based on the analysis of hard facts and data collected in the forests and the mills, interpreted in light of the local context. I hope yours is, and is not 'demonstrably untrue' as well.

Its a pity that FSC Watch is so un current about FSC certificates in the congo basin. What do you 'watch' about FSC? For your information, Wijma certificate is suspended and not cancelled as you are declaring. Please stop spreading false information. You can get yourselves informed through the FSC data base.
I can give you hundreds of pages of instances and experiences in the congo bassin, but I trully have no comments to make to the others (Barrie and David and even FSC Watch) because that will need too much "primary" school work, to make them come to realise so many things about FSC in the congo bassin. I am 100% sure that all those who try to talk against FSC which is quite successful in the congo basin, have either never been to the congo bassin, or have never had a chance to experience an FSC situation "before and after" the certification process. Or better still they may belong to other certification schemes which have no roots or head way. A good example of Hotel room Foresters. Big diplomas, but no feild experience or background. Forests do not grow in laboratories or in books.
Its really a pity. Just go there and find out. There is no need trying to convince a "mad" man that he is "mad".
FSC Watch is really missing its objectives.

chao

Ali

Ali Baba - a name chosen, I presume, because with the magic words 'Open Simsim', you a humble woodcutter are able to reveal the fabuluous wealth of treasure in the hidden cave in the forest. Ie, like Peter Pan, you live in a mythical world.

I have had 12 years experience working in and around logging concessions in the Congo Basin. I am not working for another certification scheme. I am not a 'hotel forester'. My views on the total sham that are the FSC certficates in the Congo Basin are based on firsthand experience, and the reports I have received from other local foresters whose views I have many years of being able to test and trust.

The only thing that FSCWatch has got wrong is that they have not told half the truth about what these supposedly 'sustainable' companies are really doing. In terms of forestry practices and even sustained yield, they are a disaster. OK, so they have fancy GIS systems to show where the trees are, and where the roads should be put, and one of them has even smartly enlisted the local pygmees to help map the trees to cut down. But they have no longterm growth and yield models, no longterm sample plots, no regeneration data, no real understanding, in fact, of what they are doing to the forest ecosystem. All the evidence and research shows that their operations are just like all the other logging operations - high-grading the forest for their prime species, albeit that they are doing it in a slightly more organised way. Once the wood is gone it is gone, and so will the companies be. As a very well respected forester once said to me, it'll be sustainable until it runs out.

J M Barrie

PS - Ali, as you seem to be the expert on the FSC, can you please point me to where in the FSC's rules it allows for certificates to be 'suspended', rather than cancelled?

Mr. Barrie,

Thank you for your knowledge and experience in the Congo. It sounds like something very similar is happening here in Manitoba, Canada. The Tembec newsprint mill in Pine Falls is doing much the same. They only get a fraction of their wood from their traditional supply area and the rest has to come from all over the province. Their operation is clearly not 'sustainable' in the truly green sense--it'll keep up until it runs out.

Your posts are appreciated.

David Nickarz

Right on Mr Barrie!

What you say about fancy GIS and modelling system applications in Congo can demonstrably be said about the same in New Brunswick, Canada.
Since 10 multinational forest companies have taken over the forest management of Crown forests in 1982, only 3 are still active. Over-harvesting has just about ruined the potential
of the forest for most sawmills on which numerous rural communities survived for nearly a century.

Yvon Moreault

True, a lot of destruction is being made under the objective of economic progress and wellfare of people. This is, however, an intermediate situation in forest management cycle and will soon bee recovered by new forest.
Worde, in Afganistan, six million people have lost their homes and the US air force never will build them back. Sure the US heroes will make all surviving women pregnant in effort to replace the hundreds of thousands of people they killed, but it will take a 20 to 30 years to rebuild a producing nation, lot more than the seven or so years to establish a forest.

No backlinks yet.

Add a comment

Please leave these fields blank (spam trap):

No HTML please.


You can edit this comment until 30 minutes after posting.

< 103 older entries114 newer entries >