| The Achilles’ Heel of Foresting with Exotic Trees |
Examples in Uruguay and New Zealand
by WRM (World Movement for Forests) on September 28, 2003 at 4
(info@fcsf.org)
on 25/Nov/2004 at 04:25:56
Two types of Australian fleas and two types of Latin American cutter ants have something in common: they like eating pines and eucalyptus.
This fact makes them into public enemies, and to be exterminated by the indiscriminate application of toxic products. It does not matter that these toxic substances affect the health of people and the environment—what matters is to protect the forest enterprises from this threat. This is what is currently happening in New Zealand and what has been happening for years in Uruguay, as is detailed in the two articles included in this section.
New Zealand: Fumigation of people to protect the monoculture of trees
Two small fleas are being the motive for a social and environmental confrontation in New Zealand. In West Auckland, people and the environment are being subject to a fumigation with dangerous chemical products with the objective of protecting pine plantations from the attack of the flea (Teia Anartoides). In South Auckland, the plantations of eucalyptus are suffering the same attack from another flea (Uraba Lugens) and it is still uncertain whether chemicals will be applied to confront it.
The pine and the eucalyptus are both exotic trees in New Zealand as are the fleas whose worms actively eat the leaves of the latter. What is happening today is what was foreseen by the WRM in the publication of its South Paper. At that time we had affirmed that “homogeneity of these grand plantations constituted a grave problem for the plantation itself. The initial advantage of having these exotic species (the inexistence of a local fauna for it to serve as a food supply), could become an Achilles Heel that in the long run, as predators came around. In this case, the food chain desert becomes a feast for a specie, that can reproduce itself exponentially and come to damage or even annihilate the plantation.”
There were also warnings in New Zealand itself. In 1994, the local activist and investigator Grant Rosoman, published The Plantation Effect and in reference to the intrinsic vulnerability of the monoculture plantations of trees, he affirmed that the “main uncertainty about an invasion of plague and disease to the plantation is not about IF it will happen, but rather WHEN will it happen.”
Now the foreseen plague has been confirmed, but the price isn’t being payed by companies who planted the trees, those who caused the problem, but rather by the people of New Zealand. Their health is the price to pay, and they have been refused information about the substances which are surrounding them. The products name, Foray 48B, is known, but the fabricant refuses to divulge its components. Abroad it has been determined that some of these products have toluene, parebenes, sulphuric acid, phosphoric acid, sodium hydroxide, and a long list of other potentially carceginous substances. At the same time, the taxes payed by the people are being used to subsidize fumigation.
The inhabitants of West Auckland are reacting strongly to the fumigation and have formed their organization called West Aucklanders Against Aerial Spraying (WASP) and have acted against the government’s program. They affirm that “the flea has already cost the contributors more than 23 million dollars and the government plans on spending 90 million more. The only threat seems to be directed towards the monocultures of transgenic, cloned pine trees of the forest industry. We, the people ask, whys hould we pay to protect the exploitation of private forests?” It is a very good question.
Uruguay: Contaminated with Mirex to defend plantations against ants
On May 26, the Executive Power sent the Parliament of Uruguay a project of Law to approve the Covenant of Stockholm about Persistent Organic Contaminants, written on May 22, 2001. The covenant identified a group of highly contaminant substances used to control cutter ants.
However, though the government pretends to abide by its ratification of the Covenant, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fishing and Livestock asks for an extension for the elimination of Mirex, the only pesticide listed in the Covenant that still exists in this country. If accepted, it would allow for the use of this powerful contaminant for 5 more years.
It is clear that asking for this extension has a name: the forest sector. It is known that one of the few species of native fauna able to feed off the leaves of these trees are the cutter ants and to defend themselves of them, the forest sector has released vast amounts of Mirex. In May 1999, the American investigator Thomas F. Geary—who analyzes the environmental impact of foresting eucalyptus and exotic pines—released (in English which explains the limited diffusion in the country) a study which explains the environmental impact of the forest model. In the summary of his work, Gary claims that at a “local level, where plantations are concentrated, can have undesirable effects. The use of pesticides is of immediate preoccupation …these chemical products persistently damage different species and are accumulated in human tissue.”
In his chapter on pesticides he develops more on the theme and points out that “Mirex, a hydrocarbon chloride like DDT, is a commonly used pesticide in Uruguay for the control of cutter ants. This chemical product was extensively used in the SE of the US to control fireants until 1977w hen the Agency for Environmental Protection in the US prohibited its use. Also, there is a danger that the fauna is exposed to. Mirex accumulates in human rissues and can produce cancer (Grosman: National Institute of Environmental Health, US). The use of Mirex has been recently prohibited in Brazil. Uruguay should opt for the same stance. Mirenex should also not be used.”
Since 1977, we have known how dangerous this pesticide is—it was completely prohibited in the US, Brazil also abolished it in the 90s, however in 2003 its use in Uruguay is widespread and seems to be willingly approved by the government for its continued use.
Even more absurd is the reality that there are alternatives, in Uruguay and elsewhere. Geary’s report says that “some plantations use pesticides that are less harmful, Mirex S for example, based on a sulphite, present less risks to the organisms. Fiponil, the ingredient active in Blitz, is also less dangerous than Mirex. Other pesticides like Fastac and Renegade, currently used in Uruguay are the ones that potentially present the least risk.”
It is interesting to note that the study analyzes the environmental impacts of forestation (ground, water, biodiversity, etc) and not just the topic of agrochemicals. When it comes to recommendations, the diction is that ‘immediate action’ should be taken to “cease the use of pesticides based on these chemicals—as well as an implementation of ways to control the plague as the use of pesticide can unleash social and environmental costs too high to be justified.”
The studies and recommendations of the investigator are not new for the environmentalist movement, nor for the RAP-AL (Action against pesticides and their Alternatives for Latin America) who have been fighting against Mirex for a long time. However, we understand that it constitutes an important contribution to keep in mind when the Uruguayan Parliament discusses the definitive prohibition of such chemicals within the framework of an international Covenant.
*Thomas Geary, Environmental Impact of Afforestation in Uruguay, May 10-24, 1999
http://www.partners.net/old/English/programs/description/Farmer/Trip-Reports/Geary_1999.htm
Source: Revista del Sur, Sept-Oct 2003
| |
|
|
