20.02.2020 Views

ThirstyTreesNoWaterClimateConfusion

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Page1

1


Page2

Thirsty tree plantations, no water left and climate confusion: What

version of Sustainable Development are we leaving our children?

By Liane Greeff of EcoDoc Africa

Tel: +27 (0) 83 415 2365

Email: liane@kingsley.co.za

For GeaSphere Tel: +27 (0) 13 733 5267

Email: owen@soft.co.za

www.geasphere.co.za

Title illustration and illustrations of eucalyptus and pine trees

using water were commissioned from Janet Botes. Tel: +27

(0) 72 331 5057 Email: janetbotes@yahoo.com

All photographs were taken by Liane Greeff, except for the photographs of the

community interviews which were filmed by Deirdre May for the GeaSphere

Documentary Pulp Friction.

With thanks to Roy MacGregor for constant support and advice

and to Wally Menne for valuable editorial recommendations.

Made possible with financial support from the Siemenpuu Foundation and the

Swedish Society for nature Conservation, SSNC. The views herein shall not

necessarily be taken to reflect the official opinion of the Siemenpuu Foundation or

SSNC

2


Page3

Contents

Introduction _____________________________________________________________ 4

Limited water and recurring drought in the Eastern Cape _________________________ 8

How much water do timber plantations consume? ______________________________ 9

The evolving history of timber plantations and water research ___________________ 12

Timber plantations and other invasive alien plants _____________________________ 20

Community experiences of water scarcity and food insecurity ____________________ 23

Timber plantations and fire ________________________________________________ 25

Climate Change Predictions for South Africa and the double burden of the Clean

Development Mechanism _________________________________________________ 27

Timber Plantations and payment for water ___________________________________ 30

The pulp and paper industry _______________________________________________ 32

Conclusion ______________________________________________________________ 34

References: _____________________________________________________________ 35

3


Page4

Introduction

The main tenet of this paper is that there is not

enough water available for South Africa‟s current and

planned development programme, and that there is a

need to examine the nexus between our scarce water

resources, potential significant climate change

impacts, and the decision to plant more water

intensive timber plantations. Coupled with this

conundrum are the issues of food security, or the lack

thereof, and the potential water and food security

impact of non plantation alien invasive plants,

including the uncontrolled expansion of invasive

timber plantation species such as Black Wattle, Pines

and Eucalyptus taking over valuable land and water

resources.

This paper will attempt to weave many related

threads together in a way that links with the broader

sustainable development issues that our whole planet

is facing, and our current collision course with an

unknown climatic crisis. One definition of madness

proposed by Einstein is when people do the same

thing over and over again and expect a different

outcome, and there is a related cliché says that if you

keep on doing what you are doing you will arrive

where you are headed. Right now we are not headed

in the right direction, and that is why so many recent films are exploring the end

of humanity – “2012”, “The Age of Stupid”, “Knowing”, whilst others are painting a

picture of humanity in crisis such as “Children of men” and “Avatar”. The archivist

in “The Age of Stupid” asks the question: Why didn‟t our generation do something

when we knew that we had to and we still could make a difference, and “Avatar”

highlights the sharp contrast between living in and with Nature versus destroying

Nature in order to obtain a resource. Just because a plantation consists of trees,

and trees are a key component of forests, does not mean that plantations are

forests, and all the language that implies that they are, is misleading. In similar

vein to “Avatar”, converting pristine grasslands to timber plantations in order to

obtain a needed but economically undervalued and wastefully used resource both

for national use and for export to earn foreign currency; and to neglect the larger

and longer term impacts that this will have on water security, our rivers,

biodiversity, food security, climate change, etc. is one more step in robbing our

children of the Earth as we found it.

4


Page5

There is no ambiguity about alien trees consuming water excessively, and there is

no ambiguity in terms of southern Africa being one of the driest regions of the

world, or that South Africa has been classified as the 30 th most dry country on the

planet. There is no ambiguity in that scientists have predicted that climate change

will affect Africa disproportionately and that southern Africa in particular is likely to

experience less rainfall over most of the region, with longer dry periods and

increased storm events. According to recent statistics (Blignaut and Van Heerden,

2009) South Africa is already using 98% of the available water with 12 of its 19

water management catchments experiencing a water deficit. Further, the

Department of Water Affairs and Environment (Formerly Water and Forestry)

predicts that, South Africa will have a water deficit of 1.7% by 2025.

The deficits in many of the Water Management Areas do not necessarily imply that

water use exceeds the amount available but that the allowance for the ecological 1

reserve cannot be met at current levels of use – this means river systems are

being deprived of the minimum flow needed to maintain their basic ecological

functions. Whilst the requirements for the Reserve are based on estimates at

present, in many areas, there is no allowance to sustain the ecological viability of

the resource, and substantial changes will be needed when the Reserve is

implemented (DEAT, 2009).

These statements are not ambiguous, but in combination they portray a very bleak

picture of water availability in the future. Indeed, the UNEP 2008 report

“Freshwater under Threat: Africa” states that projected figures for 2025 suggest

that per capita water availability will decrease and that “the projections for Malawi

and South Africa look particularly bleak”. This scenario could be exacerbated if

countries such as Lesotho want more access to water stored in the Lesotho

Highlands Water Project dams.

1 The ecological reserve in South Africa refers to the quantity and quality of water that is required

to: (1) satisfy the basic needs of all people who are or who may be supplied from a water resource,

and (2) to protect the aquatic ecosystems in order to secure ecologically sustainable development

and use of the relevant water resource.

5


Page6

Blignaut and Van Heerden (2009) in their paper entitled “Is Water Shedding 2

Next?” state: “water use cannot continue to grow at current rates indefinitely

given the supply constraints and the likely decline in the water availability due to

change in climatic conditions, and the socio-economic and demographic pressure

to increase the use of potable water for domestic use and to allocate water to

higher value added industries. Something has to change, and fast.”

They reviewed the 12 flagship projects of the South African Government‟s

Accelerated and Shared Growth Initiative for South Africa (AsgiSA) and noted that

the first six of the flagship projects which includes the Umzimvubu Catchment and

Timber Industries Development Initiative in the Eastern Cape are all water

intensive and that it seems as if “these projects were identified in complete

isolation from the fact that South Africa is a water-scarce and arid country.”

Their analysis reveals that macro-economic planning in South Africa needs to take

much greater cognisance of natural resource constraints, which are likely to

worsen due to climate change and the spread of invasive alien plants. Quoting

Cullis et al 2007, they say that is it estimated that if left unchecked unmanaged

invasive alien plants could consume as much as 16% of the water in the near

future.

In their concluding statement

they state: Yes, water

shedding is next “if macroeconomic

decision making is

not conducted in such as way

as to acknowledge and plan

with implicit resource

constraints and bio-physical

and hydrological patterns and

features.” Water security,

they warn is much more serious from a livelihoods and health perspective than

electricity because there is no alternative. In his plenary address to the Second

Africa Water Week (November 2009), it was said by Trevor Manuel that “Water is

life”, and unlike electricity there are no alternatives, which makes water scarcity a

matter of national security.

2 Shedding is a term used recently in “load shedding” which referred to the recent practice of

interrupting electricity supply or rotating electricity supply between different users in order to share

the burden of insufficient supply of electricity between different users in South Africa. The question

raised by Blignaut and Van Heerden refers to the immanent under-supply of water which will

necessitate some form of restriction or limitation.

6


Page7

In an updated paper, Blignaut and Van Heerden (2009) state “introducing the

proposed [AsgiSA] programmes in a business as usual and water intensive manner

will strengthen the current growth in the demand for water. This will bring forward

or accelerate the need for introducing water rationing among sectors.” And they

reiterate that whilst rationing is imminent the reality has not yet led to a rethink of

macro-economic policies, and hence there is a sense of complacency whereas in

fact there is an urgent need for proactive measures towards water

conservation.

In September last year the Water Research Commission (WRC) released a press

statement which stated that one of their latest studies has revealed that SA has

even less water than was previously estimated. This was based on data from new

technology and on integrated surface and ground water resources. The project

leader, Brian Middleton, stated: “According to this study, our assessment of

surface water resources, for example, shows that we have 4% less than we

estimated in the 1995 study. If we were allocating water according to the higher

estimates made in previous studies, we would find that there is simply not the

water available to meet our needs.” According to the WRC study, South Africa‟s

mean annual runoff was just over 49 000 million cubic metres of water; utilisable

groundwater exploitation potential was estimated at about 10 000 million cubic

metres per annum (and 25% less during drought conditions). The report also

highlighted concerns around the quality of South Africa‟s water. The WRC

believed that this study will influence South Africa‟s development sectors including

timber plantations.

A recent World Bank sponsored study by the McKinsey Group brought to light that

South Africa, by 2030, will face a shortage of 2.7 million m³ water. Dr Roelof

Botha pointed out that according to the McKinsey research, 40% of available water

worldwide is utilised for agricultural purposes. If adequate arrangements are not

made, food security could also come under threat. Additionally because South

Africa has low rainfall, few large rivers and has relatively restricted under-surface

water sources, which are often polluted, this makes South Africa dependent on its

neighbouring countries and existing projects in Lesotho. Dr Botha also included

water pollution in cities and the mining industry as key threats to the country's

water security (Water Security, 2010).

7


Page8

Based on this discussion it is clear that South Africa is running out of available

water even faster than we previously thought and as a country we need to

urgently rethink our development agenda. We should not launch any new water

intensive projects unless completely confident that there will be sufficient water

taking into consideration potential climate change impacts and invasive alien plant

invasions. The need for the precautionary principle to be implemented is very clear

– i.e. assume the worst case scenario with respect to actions whose outcomes are

uncertain, in this case water scarcity and the increasing likelihood of water

restrictions across all sectors.

Population growth is another area of uncertainty with some statisticians believing

that the population will decrease due to early deaths caused by HIV/Aids. The

National Water Resources Strategy (2004) has predicted that a low population

growth will lead to 50 million people in South Africa by 2025 and a high population

growth path outcome will be closer to 55 million people. It is unclear whether this

has taken into account the political and environmental refugees that are flocking to

South Africa from the rest of Africa.

Limited water and recurring drought in the Eastern Cape

What does all of this mean for the timber plantations

in South Africa and the proposed expansion of the

Eastern Cape timber industry? In terms of the

current planning and the Forestry Broad Based Black

Economic Empowerment Charter (BBBEE),

government aims to establish an additional 150 000

ha of timber in the Eastern Cape and between 30

000 and 40 000 hectares in KwaZulu-Natal. This is

being assisted by the special-purpose vehicle AsgiSA

Eastern Cape (Pty) Limited which is intended to

assist in driving the implementation of the plantation

programme in key areas (DWAF website). The

question is whether these water intensive plans are

feasible or whether they will effectively accelerate

the introduction of water restrictions, or the development of further engineering

solutions with their broad range of negative environmental impacts.

The current drought in the Eastern Cape is exacerbating the situation, and one

question we can ask is that if the proposed new timber plantations had already

been planted, what would their impact be on the current drought situation, and

existing water users? However, drought seems to be a recurring phenomenon in

the Eastern Cape, with media reports indicating that parts of the province had

8


Page9

been or were being considered for declaration as disaster areas in February 2009,

July 2009, and again in January 2010 (SABC, 2010, Gumenge, 2010; Dispatch

Online). In July 2009 the army was called in to assist the Eastern Cape

government in dealing with the drought. Water Affairs Minister Sonjica is reported

to have stated: “We have a crisis when it comes to water in the Eastern Cape” and

she cited the drought as evidence of how climate change was impacting on the

province, with predictions that within the next 20 years the province would be

semi-desert. She said: “We already have scientific evidence that the rivers in the

eastern part of the Eastern Cape are drying up.” (Dispatch Online, 2009)

The potential climate change implications for South Africa are discussed in more

detail in a later section of this paper, together with concerns around the Kyoto

Protocol Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) that is being used to promote new

plantations that will compound the problem of water shortages.

This brings us to the critical matter of how much water is consumed by timber

plantations and other related uses such as paper production. The following

sections represent an exploration of the science around timber plantations and

water use, which for the non-hydrologist is very confusing and very contradictory,

and like most sciences is also a function of perspective. Industry scientists tend to

be more conservative in their estimates of water use than environmentalists and

everyone else is in the middle somewhere. South Africa is however, renowned for

being world leaders in the research on plantations and water use. So these

following sections are intended to highlight areas which are particularly confusing

and where clarity is needed.

How much water do timber plantations consume?

According to Statistics SA (2009) in their discussion document entitled “Water

Accounts for South Africa: 2000” they include a number of tables depicting water

flow accounts of supply and use of water for South Africa for the year 2000. Table

17 highlights that South Africa receives approximately 611 600 million m3 of

annual rainfall per year, of which 83% is directly evaporated or used by the

natural vegetation and the remaining 17% (105 528 million m3) is available for

Gross Annual Runoff, of which about 68 274 million m3 is used by the various

sectors in South Africa. (The rest of the water flows remain in the natural

environment to augment surface water, groundwater and ecological reserve). In

describing how this water is used by the various sectors, the report states: “In

2000 water use in South Africa was driven by the agricultural sector, about 94%

(64 065 million m3), mostly for dryland crops (45 000 million m3 or 66%) and

forestry (10 828 million m3 or 16%), while irrigation consumed only 12% of

water (7 920 million m3) and livestock and game only 313 million m3. Leaving the

rest of the economy with 6% of the total water use by sectors in South Africa”.

9


Page10

This figure of 10 828 million cubic metres for

timber plantations includes the water that the

trees suck up through transpiration, whilst the

NWRS figure (below) refers to the reduction in

stream flow. The easiest way to visualise just how

much water plantation trees use in terms of

evapotranspiration i.e. 10 828 million cubic

metres, you just need to imagine four of the five

biggest dams in South Africa – the Pongolapoort,

Sterkfontein, Vaal and Vanderkloof dams, and

know that plantation trees transpire and use more

water than the dams can store (their combined

storage amounts to 10 681 million m3 (SANCOLD,

2009)).

The National Water Resources Strategy (First

Edition, 2004) indicates that for the same year –

2000 - the incremental water use of the timber

plantations (in excess of the natural vegetation)

amounted to 1 460 million m3 for South Africa as

a whole, which is basically 1/10 th of the SSA

Report and represents 3% of South Africa‟s water

use (Blignaut and Van Heerden,2009) and

according to DEAT plantations cover 1.7 million

hectares and demand 1.5 million m3 per year (3.3%) of the available water

resources in South Africa. The following section investigates how these figures are

calculated.

In the film “Pulping the Future” produced by GeaSphere (2009) the same question

was asked – how much water does timber production use in South Africa. The

rationale they used was based on South Africa having 1.5 million hectares of

managed plantations and then estimating that each hectare has at least 1000

trees, and using the conservative estimate that each tree uses at least 25 litres per

day (equivalent to the South African free basic water allowance). The

1.5 million ha x 1000 trees x 25 litres/day amounts to timber plantations using

37.5 billion litres of water per day (37.5 million m3 per day). This was compared

with a South African population of 50 million people getting a free basic water

allocation of 25 litres per person per day, which amounts to 1.25 billion litres per

day. GeaSphere‟s conclusion was that timber plantations use 30 times more water

each day than the entire population‟s free basic water allocation.

10


Page11

However one interprets the statistics, it is clear that timber plantations are using a

significant amount of South Africa‟s natural water resources, and a figure of 1460

million m3 is equivalent to the amount of water used by industry, slightly less than

the amount of water used for urban and domestic purposes, although much less

than the amount used by agriculture (CSIR, 1999a).

However, what makes timber production very different from most other water

uses is that the trees use the water before it gets into the stream flows, which

means that once the trees are planted the increase in water-use is committed

indefinitely. Further, according to DWAF (2000), timber plantations are “often

placed in the headwaters of rivers and unlike other water users, like

irrigation, industry and domestic, forestry cannot be switched off during

periods of drought. Restrictions on water use cannot be imposed in

periods of need”. This is a critical management consideration. Additionally,

according to the Department of Environment Affairs and Tourism in the State of

the Environment Report, they mention that the major concern “is that plantations

reduce the in-stream flow (that is, the amount of water in streams and rivers)

during drier, low-flow periods when there is less rainfall (for example, during

winter in inland areas and during summer in the Western Cape)”. According to

this same report, as much as 1.71 million ha of natural habitat, mainly grassland

and fynbos, have been cleared for timber plantations, and this has greatly

threatened the biodiversity resources offered by these biomes. The impact on

groundwater, which is substantial, will be covered in the next section.

11


Page12

The evolving history of timber plantations and water

research

The history of timber plantations and their impact on water resources has been

very succinctly summarised in a paper by Chapman (CSIR, 2006) where he

describes how in the early part of the 20 th Century evidence of declining

streamflow downstream of the plantations was mounting, and after the Fourth

Empire Forestry Conference was held in South Africa in 1935, the Jonkershoek

Forest Research Station was established that same year near Stellenbosch. By

1938 measurement of rainfall and stream flow was underway and other

experimental sites were established elsewhere in South Africa. The experimental

design was based on gathering baseline water data by comparing two unplanted

catchments, and then planting one to timber. The difference in the runoff

between the two catchments after planting timber could then be ascribed to the

plantations.

Jonkershoek Plantation Research Station, Western Cape

The Jonkershoek paired catchment experiments consisting of eight catchments

ranging from 27 – 246 ha were established, with relatively steep slopes, with

strong seasonal rainfall gradients, and mean annual rainfalls of about 1 200 mm

on the lower slopes that can go as high as 3 000- 3 600 mm at the top of the

valley. The percentages of catchment planted ranged from 36 – 98% with pine

species, mostly P. radiatae (Chapman, 2008).

The findings of the experiments indicated that the onset of stream flow reductions

became evident in the data when the P. radiatae reached 5 years (up till 5 years

12


Page13

compensated by groundwater), and peak reduction occurred at about 15 years,

followed by a gentle decline in water use. According to Chapman (EcoDoc Africa,

2010), a rule of thumb formula they used was that for every 10% of the

catchment planted to pines, they expected a 30 to 40 mm reduction in stream

flow.

Chapman was very clear about the scientific data supporting the direct impact that

timber plantations have on water resources, with eucalypts using approximately

600mm of rainfall equivalent and pines using about 400-450mm of rainfall

equivalent. When he was asked about the amount of water used per tree per day,

he replied that hydrologically speaking this was not a very useful measurement of

water use as they prefer to use area and rainfall equivalent, but generally speaking

a eucalyptus tree will use anything from 100 to one thousand litres of water per

day and a pine from 50 to 600 litres of water per day. The amount of water varied

according to tree species, age, position in landscape, size, the size of its canopy,

how close it is to a river and whether it growing by itself or as part of a plantation.

Pine Trees Use 400 – 450mm rainfall equivalent

Eucalyptus trees use 600 – 650 mm rainfall equivalent

No plantations big stream

Pine Plantation: Rainfall of 600mm and

above stream reduced

Eucalyptus Plantation: Rainfall above

600mm/a and stream reduced

Rainfall of 600mm/a or less and the

stream dries up completely

13


Page14

One of the reasons for the higher use of water by eucalypts is their ability to grow

deep roots. The exact measurements vary with Scott and le Maitre (1998) stating

that roots of eucalyptus trees can penetrate 50 metres or more into the soil profile

in contrast to hard woody indigenous trees whose root systems penetrating about

seven metres. Even young eucalyptus trees of three years of age can already have

root systems penetrating and extracting water to depths of 10 metres. Other

researchers have estimated the roots reach 30 metres in South Africa and 50

metres elsewhere (Dye et al. 1997, Chapman, 2006). Due to these deep roots the

eucalypts are able to “mine” water from the water table, contributing to the

desiccation of a catchment. In a South African catchment with deep soils and

planted with eucalypts, the perennial stream dried up completely and only began

to flow again 3-4 years after the trees were removed (while ground water recharge

took place). The trees had used all the rainfall (about 1200 mm/annum) as

well as ground water (Dye et al., 1997; Scott et al., 2000). Streamflow only reappeared

after the soil profile had become saturated again. Farley et al. (2005)

recorded eight instances where eucalypts stopped the streamflow completely.

Other factors that affect the timber plantation water usage include:

the water retention capacity of the soil, and the depth to which trees can

extend their roots - which effectively determines the quantity of soil water

and its rate of consumption by the trees. Soils that are deep and have

more available water can support higher rates of water extraction and

higher rates of tree growth for longer than soils that are shallower or have

less plant available water.

The age of the trees is another factor in water use - older and bigger trees

use water faster than smaller and younger trees. However, this remains

true whilst the tree is relatively fast growing. When vigour of growth

declines, the rate of water use also declines. According to Chapman this

has important implications for predicting streamflow reduction, and he

referenced Versfeld (1997) who showed how failure to account for agestructure

of plantations in a catchment could give rise to a prediction error

of nearly 60% in calculating streamflow reduction.

Plantation trees also use more water than the grasslands that they often

replace because they are evergreen - and transpire during winter - whereas

grasses are dormant in winter (Jacobson, 2003).

Whitmore (1972) from the Department of Water Affairs undertook a preliminary

assessment of the effects of plantations on run-off in Catchment Control Areas in

the KwaZulu-Natal Midlands where plantations of wattle (75%), as well as pines

and eucalypts had expanded steadily until the 1950s when a slump in the price of

14


Page15

wattle bark led to clear felling and a reduction in the planted area. Subsequently

timber plantations of pines and eucalyptus trees expanded rapidly into the areas

cleared of wattle as well as agricultural land. Whitmore stated: “It has been

estimated that 30-50% of the land at present afforested could be used for

agriculture.”

He concluded that “based on the data, assumptions and methods used in this

analysis it would seem that each km 2 afforested in the CCA [Catchment Control

Areas in the KwaZulu-Natal Midlands] is associated with the loss of about 200,000

m 3 of water” and that the “fact that these reductions exceed the mean run-off in

some seasons can be explained by the fact that the trees have access to surface

flow, interflow and ground water draining from non-afforested parts of the

catchment - in effect, water piracy occurs.”

Experiments at the Mokobulaan research catchments on the Mpumalanga

escarpment showed stream flow reductions following the planting of grassland

with both eucalyptus (E.grandis) and pine (Pinus patula), and the subsequent

response in stream flow after the eucalyptus plantation was clearcut (Scott and

Lesch, 1997). In these experiments, a whole catchment was planted with

eucalyptus resulting in a statistically significant decrease in stream flow in the third

year after planting and the stream dried up completely in the ninth year. When the

eucalyptus trees were 16 years old they were clearcut, but full perennial stream

flow did not return until five years later. Similarly, planting of an entire catchment

with P. patula produced a significant decrease in stream flow in the fourth year

after planting and caused the stream to dry up completely in the twelfth year after

planting.

Whilst Scott and Lesch

(1997) reported that the

drying up of the streams

was not surprising as the

annual runoff was lower

than the expected

reductions owing to the

full catchment area being

planted, they were

surprised at the delayed

return of stream flow in

the clearcut catchment

and they attributed this to the soil mantle acting like a large reservoir and the long

roots of the eucalypts “desiccating” these deep, soil-water stores. Only after these

soil water stores had been replenished did the stream flow return to normal. The

15


Page16

table below summarises results of stream flow reductions after plantations had

been established from some of the South African catchment experiments.

Stream flow reductions after plantation of some South African catchments

(The reductions have been calculated proportional to 100% of the catchment planted

for average age of trees at maximum stream flow reduction) From Scott et al 2009

P=pinus E=Eucalyptus

Location Catchment Tree Ave Age

(years)

Mean

Annual

Rainfall

(mm)

Jonkershoek Bosboukloof P 23 1127 324

Biesievlei P 20 1298 316

Tierkloof P 20 1319 526

Lambrechtbos A P 20 315

Lambrechtbos B P 15 1145 314

Cathedral CP2 P 29 1431 607

Peak CP3 P 20 1431 517

Mokobulaan Mok-A E 10 1166 366

Mok-B P 20 1180 182

Westfalia Westfal-D E 10 1253 321

Runoff

Reduction

(mm)

Smith (1991) reported that when pines were removed to test the effects of

deforestation on catchment water yield at Witklip, near White River in

Mpumalanga - the results showed that clearcutting led to "a significant increase in

catchment water yield of approximately 280 mm/annum during the first 4 years

after completion of treatment”. Further he found a 50mm/annum increase for

every 10% of the catchment cleared of plantations.

According to Scott, Le Maitre and Fairbanks (1998) early estimates for stream flow

reduction were estimated for the Afforestation Permit System (APS) using a

modification of the Nanni curve, which were based on hydrological studies of

grassland and pine plantations at Cathedral peak in the Drakensberg. These were

replaced by the Van der Zel curves which were able to predict the effects of two

different types of rotation lengths of plantations but could not differentiate

between species or location.

As competition for increasingly scarce water resources grew, newer improved

approaches were needed. The CSIR developed an approach which included a

range of factors that contribute to water use and that could be used in a computer

model to simulate the effects of planting or clearcutting. Factors included rainfall

(MAP), tree species and growth potential, surface runoff, class of catchment,

rotation length (period between clearcuts) and magisterial district.

The results of the Scott et al (1998) modelling approach led to some significant

results, which revealed the important difference between impacts of timber

16


Page17

plantations on total flows versus the impact on low flows, and how this differs

between different tree species. This contributed to the Afforestation Permit System

issuing permits based on timber species rather than just on plantation area. The

difference between total and low flow reductions can be significant especially in

catchments where most of the sub-catchments produce little or no low flow and

they gave the example of the Letaba River where only 3.6% of the catchment area

is planted but the stream flow reductions are close to 9% and 28% for total and

low flows respectively (Scott et al, 1998).

As plantations are concentrated in the higher rainfall regions, they consume a

disproportionately large share of the stream flow, especially the low dry season

flows. So whilst the estimates are that plantations reduced national average

annual stream flow by 3.2% (1 417 million cubic metres) the low flow reductions

are much higher and said to be almost 8% (101 million m3).

Mpumalanga with the highest concentration of plantations – over 7% of the land

area - experiences reductions of about 10% for total flows and 18% of low flows.

This amount for the entire province – means that actual plantation water usage

could be as much as equivalent to 130% of runoff from the plantation footprint.

Scott (1998) calculated an average net effect of timber growing on total South

African water resources to be a reduction of 98.6 mm/year which was lower than

the Department of Water Affairs estimate of 113.6 mm/year. This applies to

normal years not during droughts, so even if you take the two numbers and

average them to get a result of 105 mm/year this actually represents consumption

of more than 20% of the national average precipitation of 450mm, by only 1,2%

of the total land surface area of South Africa (122 million ha).

Source GeaSphere and TimberWatch and Department of Environment Affairs

Another important finding was that the best means of reducing the impacts of

plantations on water resources was to reduce the proportion of each individual

catchment that was planted to timber and to keep the riparian and wetland zones

free of trees and to shorten the rotations, and at a broader scale to maintain an

17


Page18

average normal age class distribution within each catchment and this would even

out the differences in flow reduction and reduce the peak flow reductions. Still,

Scott et all (1998) said there are a number of uncertainties and changes in the

assumptions that can lead to much higher figures in water use such as increasing

the use of fertilisers can increase water use, and the shorter lag time in

subsequent rotations of pine trees, and that planting in mist belt areas or places

where there are frequent long, low intensity storms can increase water uptake.

This later approach excluded approximately 10% of the catchment land as modern

plantations are required to leave the riparian zones clear as it is claimed that the

trees use two to three times less water if they are planted outside of riparian

zones.

Scott et al (1998) included a number of tables in their paper which are very useful

and some of the more significant results are shown below:

Illustrative Examples of Total and Low Flow Reductions (based on Scott et al,

1998)

River System Area (Ha) Area Planted to

timber (Ha)

Runoff Reduction (%)

Total Low

Olifants 7 350 308 88 055 3.7 11.2

Southern Cape 716 825 75616 9.4 12.3

Mpumalanga 2 857 158 336 294 14.8 22.4

Escarpment

South Africa 121 734 527 1 436 684 3.2 7.8

Summary of reductions at secondary catchment level (Scott, 1998, Table 6)

W5 Great Usutu 808 491 193 133 13 19.4

X3 Sabie & Sand 631 016 79 190 18.9 36.8

X1 Komati 861 824 79 649 9 13.2

These figures indicate that for some catchments the results are quite extreme –

such as the Sabie and Sand River Catchments where the total flow is reduced by

almost 20% and the low flow by almost 37%. The low flows on the Mpumalanga

escarpment are reduced by just over 22%. One of the well known and devastating

illustrations of the impact of plantations on a single river is the example of the

Klaserie River, which

originates at Mariepskop,

Limpopo Province. The water

measurements reflected in the

table below were taken where

the river crosses the road

between Tzaneen and

18


Page19

Nelspruit, beneath the mountain. All that had changed between 1935 and 1964

was the progressive establishment of plantations in the catchment area (and

possibly climate change).

Change in runoff from the Klaserie River, Mariepskop.

Source: GeaSphere Website (from Van der Schyff and Schoonraaad, 1971)

Period

Rainfall (mm)

Mariepskop

Run Off (m3)

Klaserie River

1935 - 40 1 729 143.07 million

1941 - 45 1 122 48.72 million

1946 - 50 1 332 38.43 million

1955 - 60 2 060 28.72 million

1961 - 64 1 308 16.58 million

According to Scott et al (1998) the highest impacts on low flow are in the Limpopo

Province “where small areas [of plantations] are confined to humid upper

catchments that are the principle source of dry-season flow in otherwise dry

secondary catchments”. This means there is very little remaining flow for the rest

of the catchment that has a limited alternative source of water.

Gush (2006) explained the methodology of quantifying stream flow reductions

resulting from timber plantations using time series simulation modelling, in this

case the ACRU agrohydrological rainfall-runoff modelling system which enables the

simulation of a wider range of plantation situations than those represented by the

paired catchment experiments upon which the earlier models were based. A

verification phase of the ACRU Model used these earlier paired catchment

experiments. For the national simulations they used a simplified water balance

equation where precipitation was equal to the evapotranspiration plus stream flow.

The stream flow reductions were simulated for eucalyptus and pine and water and

soils depths of all the relevant quaternary catchments, and depicted in the form of

spatial maps.

Findings included that the

simulation of the low flows

was less successful than for

the total flows, and they

discovered that the model

was not accounting for the

large water storage capacity

of the soil and the year-toyear

carry over of storage or

usage. They also found that

19


Page20

when compared with observed data, that the evapotranspiration rates of the

eucalyptus plantations were being significantly under-simulated. They concluded

that the stream flow may have been simulated correctly for the wrong reasons.

Despite this shortcoming, which is being remedied, these national stream flow

reduction tables have been accepted as a working solution for immediate

application in water resource management decision processes to do with

plantations.

From Jarmain et al 2009. (SFRA = Stream Flow Reduction Activities)

Gush has also been involved in a CSIR study that found that plantations of

indigenous trees such as the Outeniqua yellowwood, sneezewood and the white

stinkwood, may be economically more viable when it comes to the value of the

timber and impact on scarce water resources than the current alien species used

in timber plantations. Apparently the improved performance of the indigenous

systems based on economic criteria is because they have lower maintenance costs

with substantially larger product prices. In addition, further economic benefits from

indigenous plantations may be gained from by-products such as traditional

medicine, fruits, recreation, climate-change mitigation through carbon storage and

tourism. According to Gush they are working on developing concrete

recommendations and are expanding the research to indigenous trees growing in

different bioclimatic zones, and to start site/species matching in the most wateruse

efficient species." This could also go some distance towards ameliorating the

community impacts described below.

Timber plantations and other invasive alien plants

The above section details the amount of managed timber plantations where

estimates of land under plantations vary around 1.5 million hectares. The land

under invasive alien plants which include the timber species of pines, wattles and

20


Page21

eucalypts as well as other invaders is even more than that – around 1.7 million

hectares, and as they invade the riparian zones of rivers and wetlands their water

use is exponentially higher.

These fast-growing alien tree species were introduced from Australia (eucalypts

and wattle) and America and Europe (pines) in order to maximize timber

production. Some of these species spread rapidly through the lack of natural seed

predators in South Africa, invading areas disturbed by increased human activity, as

well as riparian and wetland habitats and high mountain catchments (DEAT, State

of the Environment Report). Chapman (EcoDoc Africa, 2010) highlighted the fact

that many of the species used in plantations are highly invasive, including the pine

species at Jonkershoek – Pinus radiata and Pinus pinaster. He said if you look up

to the peaks you can see the pines have invaded the higher peaks, and the

eucalyptus trees are known for invading rivers – such as the Berg River and

Riviersonderend in the southern Cape. This has a serious effect on the water

runoff of the high catchments of the Cape and the Drakensberg as well as being a

significant protected area management issue (not to mention privately owned

land).

Another issue is that pines are also a fire influenced species so when they are

exposed to fire, they are stimulated to release seeds, which can result in a massive

invasions that out compete indigenous flora (EcoDoc Africa, 2010). Of the 1436

000 hectares of timber plantation, 35% is eucalyptus (505 785ha), 57% is pine

and 8% is wattle.

Cullis, Görgens and Marais (2007) found in their study on the impact of invasive

alien plants in high rainfall and catchment areas on the total water yield, that

invasive alien plants currently use 4% of water in South Africa, but that this figure

could go up to 16% if the plants continue to spread as per current conditions.

21


Page22

This is a vital finding that needs to be taken seriously especially when one takes

into account the unknown future impact of climate change and according to some

studies, rising temperatures can result in species that are not invasive now

becoming invasive.

The graphic provided by Working for Water illustrates the same point:

A study by Görgens and van Wilgen (2004) revealed that when riparian and nonriparian

invasive alien plants were removed from catchments at Witklip

(Mpumalanga) and Biesiesvlei (Western Cape) - clearing riparian pines and scrub

increased stream flow by approximately two or three times the amount that

clearing non-riparian zones made available.

What is confusing is why these invasive species continue to be grown even though

we understand the significance of their impact. Those that grow wattle, one of the

most invasive species in the country have lobbied government to prevent it being

classed as a weed, so it is still being planted. According to Chapman, wattle is out

of control and is spreading all over Southern Africa. Similarly wherever, one finds

alien tree plantations, one finds that the indigenous forests and non-planted

grasslands and fynbos soon become invaded.

There is concern also that climate change will have an impact on the invasiveness

of some species, with the fear that some plant species that are currently not

invasive may also become so.

22


Page23

Community experiences of water scarcity and food

insecurity

According to Karumbidza (2005), studies in the northern KwaZulu-Natal indicated

that over a period of 20 years, grasslands converted to plantations suffered a

staggering 82% reduction in stream flow with the impact of water flow reduction

being particularly crucial in the dry season. In rural community areas, especially in

the study area, the loss of surface water has severely negative implications for

people‟s ability to survive. Karumbidza‟s research showed that plantations cause

small springs, streams and ponds to disappear, and that this forced people to

move into ecologically sensitive marginal areas to find water for their livestock and

vegetable gardening. He quotes one of the senior women in Sabokwe, Mrs Ziqubu

(April, 2005) who argued: “The thing is that we compete for water with these

plantations. They use up a lot of water. I remember when we go here in 1996, the

stream close to our garden was running perennially because the eucalyptus trees

were not here….Since [the company planted trees], water has become scarcer.

The stream is drying up. The land, which we had to drain because it was swampy,

has become very dry. We used to dig very small wells to water the reclaimed land.

Now we have to dig deeper and we get the water from far away. Water for

drinking has also equally become scarce. We also have to fetch water for our

cattle, chickens and goats, besides the water for domestic consumption. This

makes the work for women even harder.

Research by GeaSphere has reached the same conclusions with communities in

Mpumalanga. Interviews recorded in the documentary “Pulping the Future”

(GeaSphere, 2009) highlighted the example of the sangoma (traditional healer)

Mrs Manyike who could no longer find the muthi (medicinal) plants that grow on

the river bank, nor the ones that grow in the moist soils up the hill because

everywhere the streams and soils have dried up due to the plantations.

Additionally and even more seriously is the long history of land dispossession of

South African majority populations through the history of colonialism and

23


Page24

apartheid, and the timber plantations have been intrinsically part of that process of

land dispossession which is why about 40% of plantations are the being claimed

as ancestral lands through the land restitution process. This has resulted in

plantations exploring community plantations programmes.

Food security is an increasingly vital issue and is linked to the affordability of food

and how communities can access it. The ongoing encroachment of non-food crops

onto grazing and agricultural land will continue to erode the amount of staple food

available and increasing scarcity will lead to higher prices which contribute to

malnutrition and a host of other social problems. Sinagugu Zikulu from Northern

KwaZulu-Natal (Geasphere, 2009) wrote about his visit to the area of Mtubatuba

where he comes from that "all families had converted their land into either sugar

cane or gum tree plantations. The result was that all the local springs and local

streams were drying up. There were long queues at what used to be a permanent

spring… The grazing lands for cattle were gone, as gumtrees had replaced all the

grasslands ...people had to rely on shops for grocery supplies every month. These

commercial crops were not food crops. People who had no money to buy groceries

starved. Mielie crops surrounded by gum plantations turned yellow as roots were

spreading all over the place. …" Similarly, Msweli (GeaSphere, 2009) wrote about

the impacts of timber plantations on the rural communities of Swaziland:"It is

thanks to Sappi and Mondi that today about a fifth of land that was productive,

used to grow food and for cattle grazing, and used to grow grass to build houses,

has been turned into money making forest." He said that both the timber

plantations and the sugar cane crops had destroyed traditional community living

because both crops tend "to destroy the community by amassing vast land and

destroying the community life that has been part of our culture for years, and that

many of these plantations have come about from the mass eviction of people from

their productive lands onto non-productive land, and that this has resulted in the

“massive food shortages in Swaziland.”

24


Page25

This issue is an increasingly worldwide phenomenon and is seen by many as the

new form of colonialism in Africa. Indeed Vidal (2010) reported that 50 million

hectares of land in Africa – an area double the size of the United Kingdom - has

been acquired by rich countries to guarantee their own food supplies in a world

where global food shortages is increasing. He said that it was ironic that a country

like Ethiopia where hunger is prevalent is offering 3 million hectares of its most

fertile land for growing food for rich countries rather than for themselves. Timber

plantations where much of the produce is being used to support excessive per

capita use of resources in developed world contexts is inextricably part of resource

colonialism which ultimately deprives local people (and local biodiversity) from

using that land and associated resources. This is a core issue that we as a species

need to deliberate in our increasingly urgent need to find ecologically and

economically sustainable ways of living on Earth, ways of living with the concept of

sufficiency rather than constant acquisition, and to find ways of determining when

enough is enough.

Timber plantations and fire

According to Chapman (EcoDoc Africa, 2010) the pines and eucalyptus trees have

a much greater biomass than indigenous fynbos and grasslands, and therefore

when fires come through the plantations, the heat generated is much, much

greater than normal fires, and effectively „cook‟ the soils. Hot fires increase the

hydrophobicity of the soils which means the soils repel water instead of absorbing

it. This results in rainfall running straight off the soil surface and very quickly

generates a lot of kinetic energy that causes soil erosion. This also does not help

to replenish ground water and according to DEAT (State of Environment Report)

soil erosion in turn has a negative impact on water quality through the

sedimentation of wetlands, rivers and streams. This is why Chapman says that it is

not advisable to have alien plantations in a fire-dominated landscape.

Industrial timber plantations suffer extensive financial losses every year as

uncontrolled fires destroy plantations, buildings and equipment. According to

Godsmark (2007) fire damaged a total of 64 000 ha in South Africa in the first

eight months of 2007 and an additional 20 000 in Swaziland. According to his

statistics, the amount that had been fire damaged from 1980 to 2006 amounted to

387 000 with an average fire damage of 14 300 ha per annum.

According to the Working for Fire Website, fires of all sorts produce a mixture of

gases and particles known as smoke, which negatively impacts on global climate,

air quality and human health. These veld fires in South Africa generate every year

about:

64 thousand tons of methane,

76 thousand tons of non-methane hydrocarbons,

39 thousand tons of nitric oxide,

25


Page26

6 thousand tons of nitrous oxide and about

40 thousand tons of smoke particles per year. They also produce about

12 million tons of carbon dioxide (some of which gets reabsorbed when the

vegetation grows and therefore stable fire regimes are theoretically „carbon

neutral')

This is not true for the other trace gases, which remain net emissions. Thus a

change in fire frequency and/or extent leads to a change in greenhouse gas

emissions, which can be accurately quantified. It is worth noting that methane is

about 22 times worse than carbon dioxide in terms of climate impact, and this

does not get reabsorbed, but does dissipate after about 10 years.

According to Owen (2008) fire plays a natural and essential role in the formation

and maintenance of southern African grasslands and is called the 'life blood' of the

grassland. The bulk of the biomass in grassland is made up of rootstocks and

bulbs, and because they are underground the grassland recovers quickly from fires

which usually occur during the late winter / early spring - just before the first

spring rains. During this period the grass is extremely dry, and there is a high

probability of lightning strikes. However, grassland should not be burnt too often,

and the removal of fire has a very negative impact on the biome, and some plants

which are fire dependant for germination will die out. This is true also for the

fynbos of the Western Cape.

When fire is excluded from an area due to plantations the adjacent grasslands or

fynbos do not burn for many years, with the result that they develop a large fuel

load that when eventually burned releases great heat that affectively sterilises the

seed bank in the area. This is what happened at Silvermine and other parts of the

Cape peninsula in 2000. In some areas the strict fire management regime near

plantations has resulted in the grasslands being burnt at the wrong time of the

year, which degrades them and affects germination.

26


Page27

Climate Change Predictions for South Africa and the double

burden of the Clean Development Mechanism

Chapman believes that the Jonkershoek data sets provide a vital opportunity for

studying the evolution of climate change in South Africa, as they consist of over 70

years of detailed data. Apparently since the records began, rainfall in Jonkershoek

has declined by approximately 14%, and the runoff from the pristine catchments

has declined by approximately 20%. He stated that on average 500mm rainfall

equivalent per annum has been lost since the Jonkershoek research began, which

is significant because the high mountains are the sources of water for the lower

catchments.

The data indicates that the nature of the rainfall is also changing – and that this is

likely to continue because as the atmosphere warms, more moisture can be held in

the air, which results in more intense rainfall episodes with longer dry periods in

between (Chapman, 2008). According to DEAT (2009), projected climate changes

in South Africa over the next 50 years indicate that the western parts of the

country will become dryer, that certain areas will experience shorter rainfall

seasons, and that air temperatures will rise, particularly in the interior, and there

will be potentially increased frequency of floods and droughts.

These changes will affect all components of our natural environment and will also

impact on the economy. Scientists are saying that it is too late to focus on

mitigation alone as the climate has changed and that we need to also look at

adaptation. Civil society organisations such as 350.org are trying to get

government to reduce the carbon load in the atmosphere back to 350 parts per

million, which scientists believe will keep the global warming increase below or

equal to 2 degrees Celsius, above which there are a range of tipping points that

may result in climate change getting exponentially out of control.

Because of this need to focus on adaptation, the Department of Environmental

Affairs is saying that this adaptation needs to be incorporated in all strategies that

are linked to planning and decision-making processes at all levels, such as ASGISA.

However this is not happening. In his presentation, Blignaut mentions that whilst

government has the legislation and policies in place, the implementation is not

happening and the ethos is “dynamics as usual” with a conundrum between the

vision of ASGISA and water availability.

Bond, in his presentation to the Carbon Trading Africa Conference (2009)

explained the issue of the CDM (clean development mechanism) which is

embedded in the Kyoto Protocol that enables trading based on carbon offsets. For

example, the carbon emissions of a power station in the USA could be allowed to

continue or expand if the equivalent amount of carbon is absorbed somewhere

27


Page28

else, for instance in a tree

plantation. This is also called

carbon sequestration - removing

carbon (CO2) from the

atmosphere and storing it in

carbon sinks such as oceans,

forests or soils.

George Monbiot, who is

considered to be one of the

cutting-edge thinkers on climate

change, has debunked the notion

of plantations as carbon sink

investments: “When you drain or clear the soil to plant trees, for example, you are

likely to release some carbon, but it is hard to tell how much. Planting trees in one

place might stunt trees elsewhere, as they could dry up a river which was feeding

a forest downstream. Or by protecting your forest against loggers, you might be

driving them into another forest. As global temperatures rise, trees in many places

will begin to die back, releasing the carbon they contain. Forest fires could wipe

them out completely” (Bond, 2009).

Using timber plantations as carbon sinks has been described by some authors as

trading water for carbon - in the article by Jackson et al (2005) titled “Trading

water for carbon with biological carbon sequestration” they emphasise the need to

consider full environmental consequences of carbon sequestration programmes.

Their research of more than 600 observations and climate and economic modelling

showed that substantial losses in stream flow and increased soil salinisation and

acidification occurred together with development of plantations. Their findings

indicated that climate change feedback would probably exacerbate the water

losses rather than offset them.

Another paper by Farley et al (2005) further elaborated on the link between

carbon sequestration programmes using timber plantations and their impact on

water yield. They undertook a global analysis of 26 catchment data sets with over

500 observations, including annual runoff and low flows. Taking the different

variables into account, they found that the annual runoff was reduced on average

by 44% and 31% respectively when grasslands and shrub-lands were planted to

trees. Eucalypts had a larger impact than other trees when planted on grasslands,

reducing runoff by 75% compared to Pines that reduced runoff by 40%. Results

also indicated impacts on low flows and that impacts may be more severe in drier

regions. Their results indicated that in regions where runoff is less than 10% of

the MAR (mean annual rainfall), tree plantations would result in a complete loss of

28


Page29

runoff, and that where natural runoff is 30% of the precipitation, it will be reduced

by at least half after the trees are planted. The authors concluded that where

plantations could cause or intensify water shortages, that this factor should be

explicitly addressed when considering carbon sequestration programs.

Indeed many environmental organisations complain that carbon sequestration

programmes often result in people from developing countries “paying twice” for

climate change – firstly, with the climate change itself, and secondly with the often

devastating impacts that are associated with so-called development projects such

as plantations and large dams.

According to Philip Owen (EcoDoc Africa, 2009) grasslands can absorb more

carbon from the atmosphere than timber plantations, as much of the carbon is

taken underground by organisms such as termites, resulting in the build up of a

carbon reserve underground. Professor Braam van Wyk (Carte Blanche, 2007)

stated that grasslands capture “vast amounts of carbon, and that carbon is taken

underground by organisms, like termites for example, that incorporate the plant

material as part of the humus in the soil, and grassland soils are particularly rich in

humus and therefore stored reserves of carbon." Further, a United Nations

Project, based on work in Mexico, Thailand and Kenya, shows that grasslands

account for more than a quarter of land-based carbon turnover.

This claim has been supported by other researchers. A recent report prepared for

the Department of Environment Affairs, (Taviv et al, 2007) states: “permanent

grasslands used as pastures,

rangelands, and hayfields can

maintain large soil carbon stocks

due to several characteristics -

perennial grasses allocate a high

proportion of photosynthetically

fixed carbon below ground,

maintain plant cover year-round,

and promote the formation of

stable soil aggregates. Grassland

systems that have been degraded in the past or maintained under sub-optimal

management conditions are most conducive to sequestering additional carbon with

improved land management”.

Converting cultivated cropland to grassland typically increases soil carbon at rates

of 0.3 to 1.0 t/ha/a for a period of a few decades. Cultivated organic soils

represent another land restoration opportunity. These lands are a significant

source of agricultural CO2 emissions, with high rates of up to 10 to 20 t/ha/a of

carbon (Ogle in Taviv et al. 2007). Practices such as no-tillage and increasing the

29


Page30

carbon load in the soil may also contribute significantly to sequestration potential,

and if implemented correctly can increase the water retaining potential of the soils

by up 800% (EcoDoc Africa, 2010).

The carbon sequestration programmes in South Africa should look more at how to

improve carbon retention in agricultural soils, and to illustrate this point Francis

Yeatman (EcoDoc Africa, 2010) showed soils where the organic matter had been

increased tenfold from 0.3% to 3%. He said: “one of the things we are finding is

that as you start increasing organic matter and carbon in the soil you improve soil

structure and the sponge like effect of the organic matter retains moisture for so

much longer and you can get an 800% increase in moisture holding capacity of

soil which reduces the amount of irrigation required”. Increased organic matter

results in a more viable soil with more air spaces and each particle in the soil can

be lined with moisture which results in the moisture moving more slowly through

the soil so you end up with both moisture in the soil and good drainage, and much

less need for added water.

Timber Plantations and payment for water

In a pamphlet titled "Foresters understanding what you pay for" the Department

of Water Affairs explained that timber plantations had been declared as a stream

flow reduction activity (SFRA) in terms of the National Water Act 1998, and that

this refers to any dryland practice which reduces the yield of water from that land

(compared to leaving that land in an undisturbed condition) to downstream users.

The pamphlet further states "Industrial forestry is concentrated on 10% of

the land area that produces 60% of this country's water resources.

Industrial plantations represent, to all intents and purposes, a permanent change

of land use from relatively low water use veld or pasture, to a higher water use

crop. This higher water use (= runoff reduction) therefore demands a proper

30


Page31

control in a water scarce country." Declared activities

that reduce stream flow would be charged a water

resource management charge which varied across the

different water management areas. In the 2002/03

financial year that the new water resource management

charge was introduced, plantation owners would pay

between 0.2 and 1 cent per cubic metre. Included in the

pamphlet are the average prices for three water use

sectors with the average water price for domestic and

irrigated being R1.55, for industrial agriculture R0.48 and

timber plantations being the lowest at 0.32c per cubic

metre.

In a speech, Minister Sonjica chided the forestry industry

for its opposition to paying water charges and called on

them to join in a review of the pricing strategy to achieve

a consensus approach. She commented: “Water users

must contribute to the costs of secure water access. So I

was concerned that a representative of Forestry South Africa should tell Parliament

that they may refuse to pay the water resource management charges, which are

essential for the Catchment Management Agencies‟ (CMA) success. …When state

forestry was restructured, we agreed to “cap” the water charge for forestry at R10

per hectare. This amounts to only R15 million for all plantation forests in the

country. Since the turnover of the industry is over R20 billion and the profits of

just one company‟s local division were over R300 million, we do not believe that

this is excessive”.

In his article Tewari (2005) researched the questions of whether commercial

(industrial) forestry (timber plantations) in South Africa should pay for water. He

went through a complicated analysis of timber use and water value and came to

the conclusion that the value of the water is very significant (an amount of

approximately R3.6 billion), and that it accounts for 30% of the R12 billion

revenue of the timber industry being attributable to water alone. The results of his

study indicated that actual water values are much higher than the water

management charge levied on industrial plantations, confirming therefore that

large subsidies are being received by the industry. Tewari believes that since large

subsidies are being transferred to the industry that this makes its value

questionable, and he concludes with the question of whether South Africa should

have more commercial (industrial) plantations or significantly convert

them to grasslands, given that water is such a limiting factor in South Africa.

31


Page32

The pulp and paper industry

Environmental pressure group GeaSphere (2009) has been calling for a halt to the

expansion of the industrial timber plantation model in southern Africa, citing the

exorbitant water use of the timber species as a primary concern. The impacts on

water resources which also evident at the mills where the timber is processed to

pulp and paper, is also a major issue. At least 6kl of water is used to produce one

ton of pulp at the Ngodwana mill, and effluent from the various mills around

southern Africa further pollute rivers, estuaries and the ocean.

During low rainfall periods these pollution impacts become particularly severe, as

the dilution capacity of the rivers is reduced leading to higher levels of chloride

and other chemicals in the system. In the past, accidents at the largest pulp mill in

Southern Africa (Sappi Ngodwana) have resulted in acute poisoning of the river

with dramatic consequences for aquatic life.

Owen asks the question: “If one considers the cumulative impacts that industrial

timber plantations exert on Southern Africa's scarce water resources, it is clear

that this 'export orientated' production model should not be promoted, as the long

term costs far outweigh any short term financial benefits”.

Additionally, paper is one of the resources that is used very wastefully especially

by developed countries, and the campaign called “shrink” is aiming to “stop the

madness of paper over-consumption” (Lang, 2008). In his article he describes a

book called Paper Trails: From Trees to Trash – The True Cost of Paper written by

Mandy Haggith who travelled by train and boat from her home in Scotland to

Sumatra, Indonesia, to do her research. She stated: “I was horrified by how

destructive our paper footprint is,” she says. “I met Indonesian villagers fighting a

land-claim with a paper company that is growing acacia on their community land

to make copy paper for sale in European and North American markets. I asked

them what I could do to help their fight, and they told me to ask people in Europe

to use less copy paper. To show real solidarity with people struggling with

multinational extractive industries, it is not enough for us to shift our consumption

32


Page33

from one brand to some other, hopefully slightly less obnoxious, brand. That only

displaces the problem. Consuming differently is not good enough, we need to

consume less AND differently.”

According to Lang (2007) the pulp and paper industry is the main driver of the

expansion of plantations and consumes over two-thirds of the timber from South

Africa's plantations. He described the two main companies that dominate the pulp

and paper industry in South Africa

which are Sappi and Mondi.

According to Lang, Sappi (formerly

South African Pulp and Paper

Industries Ltd) was registered in

1936 and today owns 465,000

hectares of plantations in South

Africa and 75,000 hectares in

Swaziland. Worldwide, the

company manufactures 5 million

tonnes of paper and 3 million

tonnes of pulp a year. In South

Africa, Sappi is currently expanding its Saiccor dissolving pulp mill‟s capacity by

more than 200,000 tonnes a year. The company also plans to expand pulp

production at its Ngodwana mill by 225,000 tonnes a year. The company is

planning to convert the plantations feeding its mill from pine to eucalyptus. Mondi,

formed in 1967 by Anglo American, one of the world's largest mining companies,

manages 430,000 hectares of plantations. Today Mondi has 35,000 employees in

35 countries. In early 2007, Anglo American announced that it would demerge the

company and Mondi would become independent. Mondi, with its head office in

Austria, has a paper mill in Durban and a wood chip mill and pulp mills at Richards

Bay and Felixton.

Thus according to Owen, these companies are multi-national companies in the true

sense of the world, and the real beneficiaries of their operations are their

international shareholders.

Paper and paperboard consumption increased from over 77 million tons in 1961 to

350 million tons in 2005 representing a five-fold increase (World Resources

Institute Website) with the USA using over 88 million tons in 2005 compared to

South Africa using 3.3 million tons in 2005 (leaving 1.4 million tons for the rest of

sub-Saharan Africa. South Africa had a per capita use of 69 tons per annum in

2005 and USA 297 tons per capita in the same year. Clearly this is excessive.

Recycling figures for paper for South Africa also indicate that there is some room

for improvement with 44% of recyclable paper being recycled (Enviroserve

33


Page34

website), as each ton of paper recycled results in 17 less trees being used and

3m3 of landfill sites saved and there is a reduction of coal based emissions of 1 ton

of CO2 and electricity based emissions of 1.8 tons of CO2 (Paper Recycling

Association of South Africa, www.prase.co.za). This last statistics whilst being

favourable towards recycling actually gives testimony to just how bad it is to waste

paper.

Conclusion

The intention of this article is to share with you some of the issues around just

how thirsty alien trees are and to try and give you an idea of how vast the

plantations are in terms of land area, and the size of the problem with respect to

the shortage of available water that this generation is facing – where we will go

from a possible slight surplus to a deficit within the next decade. This means that

in ten years time (if not now) each new water allocation means that water has to

be taken from someone who already uses it. This has impacts on all of our lives –

affecting what we eat, what we drink, where we can live, etc., and compounding

this scenario is the huge and terrifying unknown of climate change.

Our world has therefore become a scary place to live in, huge disasters seem to be

happening more frequently and the economic system based on resource

exploitation is failing. Scientists are clearly saying that climate change has arrived,

and civil society is clearly saying that our political leaders seem unable or are

disinterested in reaching a global consensus on the part that all must play to

enable future generations to have an Earth where the climate is no more than 2%

hotter than the Earth that we inherited. The quote at the beginning of the article

references “the fear to bring children into this world”, and for me, this fear is real,

and we need to ask ourselves “what kind of future can we offer our children in a

world that seems to be committing suicide.”

34


Page35

It seems that most if not all our steps towards destroying ecosystems are steps in

the direction of disaster, and that our steps towards maintaining and restoring the

natural world are steps towards the definition of sustainability, where future

generations are central, and issues around resource use should be promoting

sufficiency rather than luxury. The scientists say that we need to adapt to climate

change, as we no longer have the luxury of time to focus only on mitigation. Some

say that timber plantations are part of that adaptation whilst this paper has argued

that the costs specifically in terms of water use and biodiversity are too great and

that timber plantations should not be expanded further, and indeed where

possible, removed, and that other forms of carbon sequestration, such as

increasing organic soil concentrations and promoting grassland health, are

preferable.

The statement by Daly (quoted by Blignaut, 2005) has resonance with this world

view, that more and more the limiting factor “is remaining natural capital, not

manmade capital as it used to be. For example, populations of fish, not fishing

boats, limit fish catch world wide” therefore the economic logic says to invest in

the limiting factor, to invest in leaving nature in the best condition possible, and

this includes our grasslands which is the most

under-protected biome in our country.

Our efforts to conserve natural capital will be what

your grandchildren (not mine as I will not have

any) will thank you for, not the resources that we

take from the earth and use before their time.

We can imagine the prairies in North America that

were once full of buffalo and the migrations of

springbok followed by predatory lions that took

days to pass in southern Africa, but future

generations will try to imagine the land that was

once full of prairie or grasslands, that were

converted into timber, into mines, into shopping

malls, into suburbs, into dams and into agriculture

land, and like the Archivist from “The age of

Stupid” they will ask: “Why?”

35


Page36

References:

All references cited are available on the internet, including the GeaSphere and

EcoDoc Africa Documentaries.

Blignaut, J. and Van Heerden, J. 2008 and 2009. (Two versions). Is Water

Shedding Next? University of Pretoria. Working Paper No 141.

Blignaut, J. and Van Heerden, J. 2009. The impact of water scarcity on economic

development initiatives. Water SA Vol 35 No 4 July 2009.

Blignaut, J. 2006. Ecological Restoration: Catalyst for Economic Development.

VryeAfrikaan, Vol. 3(6). 21 April 2006. www.vryeafrikaan.co.za/lees.php?id=540

Blignaut, J. Macro Perspectives on water supply and demand: the implications of

the 6% economic growth rate. Powerpoint Presentation.

Bond, P. 2009. Achieving Environmental Targets: Who Wins and Loses in Carbon

Trading for Emissions Mitigation? Presentation to the Carbon Trading Africa

Conference Climate and African food.

Carte Blanche. 2007. Sudwala Caves drying up due to timber plantations

Documentary. (7 October 2007).

Chapman, R.A. CSIR 2006. Forests and Water – An Overview of Forest Hydrology.

Chapman, RA CSIR. The Jonkershoek Research Catchments.

Chapman, R.A. 2008. Long-term hydrological monitoring at Jonkershoek aids

climate change studies. CSIR

www.saeon.ac.za/eNewsletter/Online/2008/september/doc02

Cullis, J, Görgens, A. and Marais, C. (2007). A strategic study of the impact of

invasive alien plants in the high rainfall catchments and riparian zones of South

Africa on total surface water yield. Water SA 33(1) 35-42. www.wrc.org.za

Department of Environment Affairs and Tourism (DEAT). 2009. State of

Environment Report.

Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF). 2000. Water Conservation and

Demand Management Strategy for the Forest Sector in South Africa.

Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF). 2004 Media Release. Minister

Sonjica firm on forestry water charges. 17 June 2004

Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF). 2002. Foresters understand

what you pay for. Water Resource Management Charges Pamphlet.

36


Page37

EcoDoc Africa. (2009) GeaSphere Earth Matters Documentary on Timber

Plantations www.myvideo.co.za/video/Geasphere-earth-matters-part-one and

www.myvideo.co.za/video/Geasphere-earth-matters-part-two

EcoDoc Africa 2010. A morning with Francis Yeatman: Soil Health and Ecologically

Sustainable Farming Documentary (in process).

EcoDoc Africa Documentary. 2010. Interview with Arthur Chapman at Jonkershoek

Farley, K. Jobbagy, E and Jackson, R (2006). Effects of Afforestation on water

yield: a global synthesis with implications for policy. Global Change Biology (2005)

11, 1-12

Geasphere 2009. Pulping the Future Documentary. See www.geasphere.co.za and

www.YouTube.com

GeaSphere 2009. A Critical Look at the Industrial Timber Plantation Industry.

Godsmark, R. August 2007. The impact of the 2007 Plantation Fires on the SA

Forestry and Forest Products Industry. Forestry South Africa

Görgens and van Wilgen (2004) Invasive alien plants and water resources in

South Africa: Current understanding, predictive ability and research challenges.

South African Journal of Science Vol. 100 27-33.

Gumenge, P. 19 January 2010. Eastern Cape reels - drought persists,

(www.grocotts.co.za/content/eastern-cape-reels-drought-persists-19-01-2010)

Gush, M. 2006. Modelling streamflow reductions resulting from commercial

afforestation in South Africa: From research to application. CSIR.

Hennop, J. 2009. Eastern Cape declared drought disaster area! Dispatch Online.

Jackson, R., Jobbagy, E, Avissar, R., Roy, S., Barrett, D., Cook, C., Farley, K., le

Maitre, D., McCarl, B., and Murray, B. 2005. Trading water for carbon with

biological carbon sequestration. Science. Vol. 310.

Jacobson, M. 2003. Water Policy and Pricing Timber Plantations in South Africa:

Implications for Sustainable Forestry http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/ARTICLE/WFC/XII/0308-

C1.HTM

Jarmain, C., Everson, C., Gush, M. and Clulow. A. 2009. The quantification of

green water in South Africa: Advances to support integrated water resources

management. CSIR.

Karumbidza, J. 2005. A Study of the Social and Economic Impacts of Industrial

Tree Plantations in the KwaZulu-Natal Province of South Africa

Lang, C. 2008. Argentina: Scientists confirm that plantations dry up streams and

salinise groundwater. WRM Bulletin no. 128, March 2008.

37


Page38

Lang, C. (2008) Shrink: A new campaign to stop the madness of paper overconsumption.

WRM Bulletin 131, June 2008.

Lang, C. 2007. Pulpmill Water Website. Page on South Africa.

Department of Water Affairs. National Water Resources Strategy (NWRS) First

Edition. 2004.

Owen, P. (2008) Fire and the Grassland. GeaSphere Website.

www.geasphere.co.za

SABC News 3 February 2009. Eastern Cape declares disaster areas owing to

drought.

SANCOLD News May, 2009.

Scott, D. and Lesch,W. 1997. Streamflow responses to afforestation with

Eucalyptus grandis and Pinus patula and to felling in the Mokobulaan experimental

catchments, South Africa. Journal of Hydrology 199 (1997) 360-377

Scott, D and Smith R. 1997. Preliminary empirical models to predict reductions in

total and low flows resulting from afforestation. Water SA 23 (2)

Scott, D and Le Maitre, D. 1998. Interaction between vegetation and groundwater.

Water Research Commission Report, No 730-1-98.

Scott, D. Le Maitre, D and Fairbanks, D. 1998. Forestry and streamflow reductions

in South Africa: A reference system for assessing extent and distribution 1998

Water SA 24 (3)

Smith, R. 1991. Effects of clearfelling pines on water yield in a small Eastern

Transvaal catchment, South Africa. CSIR. Water SA Vol 17 (3)

Statistics South Africa. Discussion Document D0405.1 March 2009. Water Accounts

in South Africa: 2000

Taviv, R., Van der Merwe, M., Scholes, B and Collet, G. (2007) Non-energy

Emissions Agriculture, Forestry and Waste: An input into the Long Term Mitigation

Scenarios process. Prepared for Department of Environment Affairs and Tourism

South Africa (Council for Scientific and Industrial Research)

Tewari, DD. (2005) Should commercial forestry in South Africa pay for water?

Valuing water and its contribution to the industry. Water SA Vol 31 (3) 2005 p 319

- 326

UNEP AMCOW WRC 2008. Freshwater under Threat Vulnerability Assessment of

Freshwater Resources to Environmental Change Africa

38


Page39

Van der Schyff, H and Schoonraad, E. 1971. The Flora of Mariepskop. Bothali 10

(3) 461 - 500

Vidal, J. 2010. Food, Water driving 21 st Century Land Grab. The Observer Online. 7

March 2010.

Water Research Commission (2009) Press Release: Study reveals less water than

previously estimated.

Water Security: International problem - acute in South Africa. 2010.

(www.servicepublication.co.za/index.php/magazine/environment/204-watersecurity)

Whitmore, J. 1972. An estimation of the possible effects of land management

practices on run-off from the Catchment Control Areas in the Natal Midlands.

Technical Note Number 26. Department of Water Affairs Hydrological Research

Division

Working for Fire Website www.workingonfire.org/

World Resources Institute. 2006. South Africa Country Study

http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/forests-grasslands-drylands/country-profile-

165.html

39

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!