Welcome to Geasphere South Africa

The South African forestry industry would like us to believe that their plantations are good for the environment. Yet conservationist’s agrue that the same plantations destroy biodiversity, squander our precious water and could be a threat to ecotourism. They are nothing but “green deserts”, argue some concerned individuals, but “green wastelands” would be more apt than a comparison with deserts – there is more biodiversity in a few square meters of the Namib desert than in an entire plantation.   The way forestry is regulated, foresters could plant up the final remaining 1% of grassland left, destroy all the red data species contained in this threatened biome and there is nothing in the way the law is currently practised, to prevent them from doing so.

Don’t plant a tree for Abor Day. Pull one out! Says Professor Braam van Wyk, botanist and campaigner for biodiversity. A heresy? Maybe it would sound to some, but no one loves trees more than Braam van Wyk and he is simply debunking the blanket notion that all trees are good. To him this is not only naïve but dangerous – it may be deforestation that is destroying biodiversity  in the Amazon rainforest but in S.A. biodiversity is being destroyed by to many exotic trees in the form of plantations.

“By all means plant some indigenous trees in your garden to attract birds”, says van Wyk. “ Plant trees where trees used to occur, pull out all the alien invaders such as Syringa, Cluster and Black wattle, especially when they occur close to rivers and wetlands. and don’t be seduced by those green blankets of Pine and Eucalyptus trees that almost entirely smother the Eastern Transvaal escarpment. That could be one of South Africa’s biggest environmental catastrophes.”

According to botanist Peta Masson,  photographs of the Sabierea last century showed extensive grasslands and a virtual absence of plantations. Before 1875 these beautiful grasslands were home to a host of species with high levels of endemism and diversity. ( the majority of the hundred and ten escarpment endemics are montane grassland species.)

The blue swallow, Hirundo angolensis, and Broad tailed warbler, Schoenicola Brevirostris, found almost exclusively in grasslands, were not endangered then. Also amongst the indigenous Flora and Fauna that once thrived but are now rare, are plants such as Clivia Caulescens, Gladiolus Exiguus Var. Mirantha and Watsonia Transvaalensis, and animals such as the Oribi, Ourebla Ourebi, Mountain Reedbuck, Redunca Fulvoruvula and Gunnings Golden Mole, Ambiysomus Gunningi.
Then, in 1875, commercial afforestation began. Little by little, the pretty alpine highlands turned into a monotonous green. The first to complain were local farmers, not about biodiversity, but about the threat to their lifeblood water. By 1915 farmers have noticed decreased water runoff, and although these complaints intensified during the drought of the 1960’s, it was not until 1972 that the department was ready to respond with its afforestation permit system (aps). The criteria for permits, however, were based on self confessed “crude” understanding of the impact of afforestation on water runoff at the time.
The department of Water affairs and forestry always intended to update the system but never did. Biodiversity never came into the equation at all. It is now paid lipservice as a sort of moral optional extra, but the issuing of the permit is in no way legally constrained by the rarity of species on the land.

In the Transvaal, approximately 40% of the afforestation permits were issued on land supporting red data species. For example, 17 permits given were for land supporting Wattle Crane, Grus Carunculata, nesting sites and 13 supporting Blue Swallow nesting sites. Only 1000 Wattle Crane pares are left in South Africa, with a mere 30 occurring in the Transvaal. Only 29 Blue Swallow nests remain in the province.
Now South Africa has 1.3 million hectares under commercial afforestation and there is a major drive to double this figure by early next century. But we only have a scant 1% of our high altitude grasslands left and pessimists say none will be left after this fresh onslaught!
Many conservationists regard this aggressive afforestation as “the biggest environmental catastrophe” facing South Africa today in terms of squandering precious water, destroying priceless biodiversity, spoiling the natural beauty so important to the ecotourism industry and place an even greater stress on rural communities dependant on perennially flowing rivers.
Few would argue that there should be no plantations at all and  even the watchdog wildlife society considers commercial afforestation a legitimate activity, if managed correctly. However, it is own study of forestry practices, as well as a study commissioned by the Botanical society of South Africa and carried out by Peta Masson, indicates serious shortcomings.
50% of threatened plants in the Transvaal and 43% in Natal occur in areas with “afforestation potential”. The rapid decline of indicator species such as the Blue Swallow should serve as a warning.

In Mozambique, 30 000 hectares of sensitive coastal grasslands and wetlands are to be planted with exotic trees by Sappi, one of the forestry giants in South Africa. Conservationists are angry that no proper environmental impact study has been done. Sappi says no wetlands are present, only “marshy pans”. Comments such as these speak for themselves, for what are marshlands and pans other than wetlands?
Approx. 50 000 hectares of Eliot/Maclear districts in the north eastern cape have been afforested by Mondi, the other privately owned big player in the forestry stakes, without a thorough survey of the region beforehand, claims some conservationists. By 1995 the figure could be 100 000 hectares. Mondi retorts that it has a ongoing study, fair enough, but what really irks is the “plant first, study later” approach.
The water research commission (WRC) claims that forestry will have a positive effect on the eastern cape, helping veld recover from grazing pressure. However a recent study from China shows plantations have a negative effect on soil fertility. This is borne out by the forestry industry itself.

A botanist elaborates on the effect of Pine and Eucalyptus trees “they acidify soil, devour nutrients and leach substances into the soil that repel other plants. So micro-organisms in plantation land are deficient for years after harvesting. The healthiest soil is found in natural veld”
According to hydrologist W.Pitman, exotic plantations have the following degrading affects compared with natural grasslands :  they increase rainfall interception by the vegetation canopy (grasslands intercept 1.5mm of each rainfall of each rainfall as opposed to the 10mm of forests) ; they increase water loss through evapotranspiration ; and soil moisture is than abstracted from increased depths. Andrew Duthie, the wild life society’s ecologist , expands on this third point “grasslands are dormant  in winter and thus they use far less water than plantations which will grow all year round”
The state forestry department claims that each plantation tree uses only 25L of water a day, but studies carried out by Forestek, a division of CSIR, indicate that when conditions are dry, Eucalyptus can use 120 litres of water a day. Pines, which use slightly less water, are still being studied. A key problem with plantations, therefore is the way they affect the low flow …… of winter. Forestek has shown this to be significant in the north eastern and eastern Transvaal, Natal and the Cape where large reductions – as high as 90 to 100 percent (Eucalypts) and 40 to 60 percent (Pines) in monthly flow occurred as a result of afforestation.

When indigenous riparian vegetation is destroyed and trees are planted right up to the edges of streams or wetlands water flow is badly effected and this occurred on many older sights before permits were introduced. The forestry industry lamely admits that we the industry know far too little about how to manage riparian zones and wetlands in afforested areas. At the moment we are guessing too much for comfort.
The various routes from the highveld cities to the Kruger Natoinal Park and private game reserves of the eastern Transvaal wind down some spectacular mountain passes along the eastern Transvaal escarpment, but for most the view has been reduced to the monotany of regimented plantations. Recently, the Long Tom Pass has been planted with pine trees and although the splendid narrow cascade of the Long Tom Waterfall is still visible, when the trees grow the pass could be reduced to yet another green tunnel.

Such appalling visual pollution extends well beyond the borders of the Transvaal, for the majestic Natal Drakensberg, arguably the countries greatest range, is also threatened with afforestation. Yet all the forestry officials can say is that plantations will soften the “barren, grassed or burnt” grasslands of the Drakensberg. Try telling that to the new bread of European and American ecotourists who want to see the “barren” savannahs and grassland of the real Africa, not a cheap imitation of their countries of origin!

With so many justifiable misgivings about forestry, why is there this seemingly drive towards massive afforestation? Is it just short-term greed? Are the long-term profits so irresistibly attractive? What are the vested interests behind it?
First is the state, including the South African Forestry Company Ltd (SAFCOL) privatised State forestry), as well as divisional councils and municipalities which collectively own a hefty 27.4 percent of all plantations. Then there are the big privately owned corporates - Mondi, Sappi and Hunt Leuchars &Hepburn HL&H) – With a massive 40 percent, while another 17 percent is owned by smaller companies and the rest by individuals.
When these organisations are asked what argues them to fly in the face of so much environmental opposition, the answer, smugly given, is “to meet local demand”. Experts among the forestry antagonists say this is a lie, the real reason being that large forestry companies have built expensive processing plants which cannot run at capacity without a healthy export market to supplement the local market. Sappi and Mondi have between them also acquired interests in seven plants in Europe. Supplying them requires more trees.

Natal, earmarked as the major area of forestry expansion, may find some relief in the fact that South Africa has been approached by Chille and Brazil with cheap exotic timber for sale. We are also already importing wood from Zimbabwe. However, true environmentalism thinks globally, so obtaining exotics from other countries simply pushes the problem out of our backyards into someone else’s.
According to sources in the forestry industry, exports, mainly of paper pulp, have tripled over the past few years. South Africa currently exports 30 percent of total production; Sappi sells half of its annual production on the export market.
 If, as some conservationists accuse, South Africa is sacrificing the significant potential of its biodiversity for foreign exchange, the moguls of industry appear to be backing the wrong horse. Consider that forestry earned R2 billion in forex in 1992 and employed 125 000 people. And consider also that tourism, even in these difficult political times, earned R2,5 billion in forex and employed 300 000 people. Leaving aside all other considerations, is it really worth jeopardising an industry which has the potential to grow manifold, provide vast numbers of people with jobs, and with reasonable planning have relatively little impact on sensitive environments for one that would almost certainly have a terminal effect on certain ecosystems?

Conservationists also accuse the industry of selling out the environment for tax breaks. Although the major tax benefits for forestry were abolished in 1991, some schemes still exist. According to legal tax expert the large companies have a system whereby wealthy individuals can  “invest” in forestry by “giving” money to the organisation for planting trees. The forestry company gets the start up capital and the private person in return may claim the tax benefit. Until very recently the South African courts resisted the scheme on the grounds that the scheme did not constitute proper farming. However, a test case has recently been won.

 In the 1970’ies the landowners were able to borrow money at low interest rates for afforestation but this was discontinued. However, Dr Diek van der Zel, principal scientist with the Forestry section of the Department of Forestry and Water Affairs, says that this system will be reinstated in a slightly form.

We want to encourage small farmers with a few spare hectares on their land to plant trees, says Dr van der Zel. He hopes that the new system will be established within a year and says that interest rates will vary from area to area. Sappi and Mondi are also encouraging small growers in the homelands to grow trees by providing free seedlings and support. The impact of afforestation in these marginal, overpopulated areas is of concern. Even a forestry brochure warns that “good management requires highly trained people” but, it continues, there are thousands of hectares of marginal lands on farms that could be planted to timber. If the lands are marginal then surely they are not ideal for timber?
 Until 1972 forestry was uncontrolled and even today nearly 70 percent of current plantations are still not permits. The permits systems introduced in 1972 has proven hopelessly inadequate, yet in 1993 we are still issuing permits using the same criteria which only take account of water runoff.
Among the many shortcomings of pertinent criteria in the permit system are that downstream demand is estimated on a subjective basis and only the total catchment is considered, not highly sensitive sub-catchments and tributaries. According to an expert, some farms are even classified under the wrong catchment areas. Furthermore, until 1991, no recognised conservation authority was even involved in permit assessments. Now, Agriculture and Nature Conservation officials undertake field visits during which agricultural problems and ecological sensitive areas are brought to the landowners attention. After that it is a matter of the individual’s conscience.

Only applications greater than a hundred hectares go to the central committee in Pretoria. Smaller projects are evaluated by local offices of the Department of Water Affairs. Yet many areas of conservation importance are less than a hundred hectares in size.
As one so typically finds in State and parastatal circles, buck passing is developed to the point of art. The forestry authorities argue that plant conservation is nature conservation’s problem, yet nature conservation departments only have provincial ordinances as legal back up which are superseded by the bills of parliament that support forestry. Furthermore, nature conservation may only prosecute for the illegal capture or removal of protected species, but not when this is connected to a “development action” which incorporates anything from township development to forestry. Besides having very few “teeth”, nature conservation is given only one mouth to make an adequate assessment of biodiversity.
Many conservationists argue that the new afforestation projects should be subject to an environmental impact assessment. In many countries, EIAs are a mandatory feature of land use planning. In the UK, conservation is a statutory responsibility of the forestry commission.
State forestry claims that it carefully analises new areas to be afforested. So where are the plant samples? They don’t end up in our herbariums for analysis. It is all a bluff, says a botanist.

If biodiversity becomes a part of the legislation then we are happy to incorporate it when issuing permits. After all, we are merely public servants implementing whatever is in the law, says Dr van der Zel.
Perhaps the most urgent task is to make sure that all forestry areas come under proper regulation. We would ideally like all the non-permit areas to be declared permit areas, comments Dr van der Zel. However it appears that permit application is seen as a mere formality. In at least a third of permit applications, a nature conservation officer noted that ground-ripping and even planting had commenced before the permit was finally approved.

According to Peta Masson’s study, plantations are not properly policed. Dr van der Zel says that at least once in the three years for which a permit is valid, an extension officer is sent out to check compliance with the permit on both private and SAFCOL plantations. Perhaps the infrequency of visits is explained by South Africa having only 20 extension officers country wide.
Although many transgressions must have been found (according to the wildlife society and Peta Masson), no prosecutions have ever been made. Dr van der Zel is very proud of the fact that one prosecution was almost made. The big company in question deforested the 50 hectares it had illegally planted and prosecution was therefor not necessary. Anyway, with the penalty of not complying with the permit being a mere R10 per day of non-compliance following a letter of warning, up to a maximum of a few thousand rands, it is little wonder that farmers have so little respect for the permit system.

Public pressure has helped encourage Sappi, Mondi and HL&H to put money into riverine rehabilitation. However conservationists are warning the public against accepting company propaganda too readily. For example, a company may say it has left 160 hectares of Kaapsche Hoop, but what about the 10 000 hectares that have already been planted? Or it may boast about blue swallow and Twee Rivier “gillemientjie” (an endemic fish) protection on 417 hectares in the eastern Transvaal, but you have to remember that 200 000 hectares are under plantation.
While environmental policies are not a feature of small companies and partnerships, to their credit, the big companies have all developed environmental codes of conduct and some even do environmental audits. Mondi, for example, established a clearly defined policy in 1983, and Sappi appointed its first full-time environmental manager in 1989. HL&H also have an environmental document, including a workable audit system which was ready this year.

Mondi says that the eastern Transvaal has been overplanted and as fells pre-1972 plantations, it does not replant to the same extent. The company has 22% of its eastern Transvaal land under conservation and this includes all areas left unplanted because of proximity to rivers and indigenous forests. Also, the company is engaging in “enrichment planting” which means planting yellowwood, black stinkwood and pepper bark trees -100 per 200- hectare estate. Sappi says that all pre-1972 plantings have been felled and planting practices go way beyond permit requirements to include biodiversity and natural beauty. Furthermore, Sappi has 32% of its Transvaal land under conservation management and says the development of detailed management plans for grassland areas will be boosted during 1993.

Both Sappi and Mondi have had areas of ecological importance registered under the natural heritage site programme but this offers no legal protection and when challenged to apply for proper legal status for their “protected” areas both said the bureaucratic rigmarole put them off. Mondi maintained it was up to the department of environmental affairs to buy any land from them that it deemed worthy of conservation. In addition, Sappi said that protected areas were not viable for planting and therefor not under much threat and because so much of its business was in the export market, it felt pressure from international environmental groups such as Greenpeace was enough to ensure that protected areas remained protected.

The State has produced many different documents on conservation but a concise one is needed in which practical suggestions are made. Some documents are downright pie in the sky, waxing lyrical about “landscaping” plantations to blend aesthetically into mountainsides, when money does not even seem to be available for basic riparian rehabilitation.

The State says it spends “ thousands of rands of research and management of riparian zones” but aerial survey show many riparian zone transgressions on state properties, whereas on Sappi and Mondi properties, the forestry management was seen to be working to the practices stipulated by their permits.

The 1989 Strategic forestry development plan for South Africa by the dept. of forestry says from 1993 to 2010 we will gain nearly 17000ha. Of plantation a year. Regionally Natal will get 80% of all new afforestation, Transvaal 14% (Eastern and Southern Transvaal already contain over half the plantation ; 514000ha ) and the Cape 6%. Yet a spokesman for Sappi said he did not think their would be much further afforestation in S.A.. Consevationists are speaking greater reassurance than this, however, and urg a moratorium an all further planting, particularly in Afro-montain grasslands, until the conservation status of these areas has been satisfactorily researched.
Forestry often defend itself by saying that it has planted only 1% of the total land in South Africa, but its 1% is a 100% of certain habitats (20% of Eastern and South eastern Transvaal are afforested).

“We must give forestry credit on one point, “ says professor Braam van Wyk. “it has conserved indigenous forests.” But this is not an accuse to feel baie heilig (its holier than thou) and to use such spurious arguments that forestry is not the same as importing toxic waste. Forestry has profound effects on the environment, thus good forestry practises must be mandatory.
“Forestry should read the new WHITE PAPER on a national environmental management system which says protection of ecologicaly sensitive areas such as grasslands, wetlands and mountain catchment areas should be ensured and environmental impact assessment should be used in such areas”

“Forestry should be planned to minimise damage. Intergrated environmental management (IEM) should be employed. Water use must be balanced between all users,” are just some of the recommendations contained in the paper.
Professor Richard Fuggle of the dept. Environmental studies, UCT, says an EIA and sociological assessment should be done before any new afforestation takes place. One needs to involve communities and consider socio, political implications. “If water affairs have adopted IEM for all its activities, why cant its sister dept. do the same?” asks the wildlife society.

Permit criteria should be reviewed to include biodiversity and scenic considerations in a meaningful way, urges the wildlife society. The director general of forestry is not legally required to consider nature conservation, but he is morally obliged to do so, the wildlife society maintains. In fact, legal opinion obtained by the society has determined that nature conservation is a legitimate criteria and that if the director general were to indicate in advance that he intended to take nature conservation, aesthetics and erosion control into consideration, this would be lawful and the landowner would simply have to accept the director generals decision. A decision to refuse a permit on the grounds of nature conservation therefore, would have legal standing. And so the director general have both sufficient evidence of the importance of biodiversity and the legal standing to act accordingly without statuary hindrance yet he does nothing.

All of us have the right to have our natural heritage protected and to challenge those whose job it is to do so. It is wrong to see valuable ecosystems under such huge threat from large scale activities of dubious long term value to the people of our country. The expanding forestry industry is doing more harm than good and its time the public cried “enough”!!!!!!!

 Africa – Environment & Wildlife
SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 1993 VOL. 1 NO. 3

ARE ALL TREES GREEN? The forestry industry replies
Text By Susan Cellier (for the Environmental Working Group of the Forestry Council)

Critics of the South African forestry industry would have us think that plantations are merely green wastelands – a total environmental disaster. A closer look shows that forestry actually helped to initiate environmental awareness in this country, and that it contributes significantly to conservation and ecotourism. A renewable resource, trees improve air quality, purify water, enrich soil and prevent erosion. With its growing emphasis on waste-paper recycling and its potential for social upliftment through small grower schemes and through low-cost housing, forestry is an important, environmentally and socially responsible industry for the new South Africa.

‘Preservation as an environmental policy is a dead duck – it’s just not possible in the real world,’ says a prominent environmental economist. ‘Most environmentalists have finally realised that there are trade-offs.’ In the real world with all its imperfections we need to find a balance between industry and conservation, development and preservation. Any change in land-use from natural grassland or bush, whether it is to maize, sugar-cane or trees, inevitably results in a reduction in biodiversity and also a change in the type of plants, mammals and birds that live in the area. If we had to import all of the maize, sugar, wood and paper products we as a society need, how could we ever hope to afford it?
To survive economically, countries have to strive for self-sufficiency, which means that some land has to be used for agriculture, forestry, industry and housing. In a country where the politically disenfranchised majority is clamouring for land reform, demanding a chance to own and run its own economically viable farms, it is unlikely that a new government will decide to set aside remaining grasslands for the benefit of overseas ecotourists who want to see the ‘real Africa’, regardless of the ‘forex’ this could earn.
One has only to look at the ‘African flower garden’ of multi-coloured plastic packets stuck to the stubble, which is all that is left of the overgrazed grasslands in many areas, and to watch the rivers run brown and thick with soil to the sea after it rains to know that South Africa is in big trouble environmentally, and that this trouble comes from many social, economic and political sources.
Human aspirations and uncontrolled population growth are the real threats to our natural heritage, not the growth of the forestry industry. ‘Over the next 20 to 30 years, the industry could double its output,’ says Mike Edwards, executive director of the Forest Owners Association. But this does not mean we will double the area planted. The industry has formulated a three-pronged approach to achieving this increased output.
‘First, the industry’s research into silviculture and tree breeding will dramatically improve yields from existing areas. All the major forestry companies plus four or five research institutes and university departments have scientists at work breeding new, superior clonal hybrids to plant in existing forestry areas, and discovering better methods of site preparation, weed control and fertilization.
The possibilities for improved yields on existing sites are tremendous –30 to 50 % from improved site-species matching alone according to Martin Herbert, silviculturist  at the Institute for Commercial Forestry Research ( ICFR ).And fertilization at planting can increase the harvest by four to seven tons per hectare just for wattle bark
To that, add anther 65% increase from genetic developments. Reports tree breeder Dave James,  “The genetically improved trees grow faster, so an eight year rotation is reduced to five years – in three cycles, you have gained a cycle”. “Second,“ according to Mike Edwards an increase in wood and waste paper recycling will significantly reduce the need to cut down trees to produce our products.
The forestry industry initiated the drive to recycle waste paper in this country by the introduction of consumer collection schemes to recover paper. According to a report by management consultant Louis Heyl, some S.A. paper board mills have as much as a 70 to 80% intake of waste paper, and there is a push to bring others up to this level. The report futher estimates that, currently in South Africa waste paper utilization is around 600 000 tons per annum. This represent a utilization rate of nearly 41% of paper and paperboard consumption and 32% of total production, including exports. Evidence show that there is still spare capacity at the mills and that more waste paper can be recycled, thus reducing the need to enlarge forest resources.
“third,” Edward concludes, a maximum of 250 000 to 300 000 hectares could be planted, of which 100 000 hectares has already been planted in the last 3 to 4 years. This new afforestation will consist largely on extentions to existing areas and also of increased small grower incentives.
But what about the existing plantations? The question that some concerned people ask is, why exotics? If we need to farm trees to produce timber, pulp and paper, why cant we use indigenous species? While there is some sustainable management of southern Cape indigenous forests for valuable woods for the furniture market, the type of tree needed for a competitive and profitable industry must grow much faster and straighter, and yield a higher volume of wood over time than is possible with indigenous trees, says “Doggy” Kewley, a regional manager in Zululand and chairman of the local Dendrological Society. Also, indigenous trees are not suitable for pulping, and the areas they flourish in are limited.
For that matter, maize, rice, sugar-cane and other commercial crops are also species exotic to South Africa. Exotics in themselves are not bad unless they are allowed to spread unchecked, and while there have been some bad experiences in the past, especially with wattle, forestry companies are now extremely careful to control any invasive activity on the edge of plantations.
Surprisingly, however, even wattle has its good points. Forestry consultant Peter Stratten claims that this tree, which is accepted by all as being an unusual invasive exotic species, is far better than any indigenous trees when it comes to providing poles for building huts and calorific value for cooking. “Where,” he asks, do the interest of rural people, desperate for building materials and any kind of fuel, figure when environmentalists rage against wattle plantations?
Most recent afforestation in Natal has been on the North Coast, where Eucalyptus plantations have replaced sugar-cane. The one time sugar farmer and award winning conservationist Ian Garland says, “I don’t mind when one mono culture takes over from another. And in this area the Gum plantations are much better environmentaly because they are not planted near rivers or on valley bottoms.”
Ian Garland tells a story from his sugar-cane farming days, when he used to keep a stand of gums as a back up crop if the cane failed. After the gums were felled he planted the area with sugar-cane and the yield was incredible. He explains, the gum trees bring up trace elements from the subsoil through their taproots, and subsequently enrich the top soil through leaf litter. The shading provided by the trees also protect and improve the soil.
As part of forestry conservation effort 50 hectares of Ian Garlands farm has been proclaimed natural heritage site and another 200 hectares of the catchment a protected wetland area. In 1981 Garland started a rehabilitation project in which he has planted more than 30 000 indigenous trees to date in a effort to re-establish indigenous forest where sugar cane had eradicated it.
In the opinion of the forestry council, foresters  pioneered environmental conservation in South Africa. They initiated the cape forestry act of 1888, which helped to lay the foundations for modern management of plantations and protection of indigenous forests, and which prescribe the first conservation measures. A century later the forestry industry industry again took the lead with a environmental code of practise which has been unanimously adopted by the industry. Can any other resource industry in the country say the same?
20 natural heritage sites covering more than 30 000 hectares on forestry land conserve catchments, indigenous forests, rare aloes, cycads and other plant species, examples of specific veld or plant types, rare wildlife forms and series of caves containing early human artifacts.
But apart from conservation areas, is there any biodiversity in the plantations themselves? Are they really the “green wastelands” that the are accused of being? A study done by Deall and Backer in 1989, which studied plantations in the Hazyview Mount Anderson area, found 1009 different plant species alone. This does not take into account the various animal and insect species that are also found in plantation areas.
When planted on degraded sites, forestry leads to a improvement in bio diversity, and can provide organisms with greater protection than they had before. In fact, over 90% of all mammals expected in the areas where forestry is practised are present, says environmental manager Ricky Pott, “even elephants”.
While Pott agrees that some of the animals are found only in fenced game reserves or unplanted areas on forestry land, there is much wild life in the actual plantations themselves. In the Louwsberg area, warthog, Phacochoerus aethiopicus, kudu, Tragelaphus strepsiceros, and klipspringer, Oreotragus oreotragus, have recently been seen on newly afforested farms where they have not been seen for over 50 years. On some plantations reedbuck, Redunca arundinum, and blesbok, Damaliscus dorcas phillipsi are now so common that they can be captured for restocking other areas, while oribi, Ourebia ourebi, grey and red duiker, Sylvicapra grimmia and Cephalophus natalensis, bushbuck, Tragelaphus scriptus, rhebuck, Pelea capreolus, serval, Felisserval, and bushpig, Potamochoerus porcua are common and generally thriving. Brown Hyena, Hyaena brunnea, aardvark, Orycteropus afer, and black backed jackals, Canis mesomelas, are also found.
The main reason suspected for the decrease of the blue swallow, Hirundo atrocaerulea, is the loss of breeding sites due to afforestation and other forms of land use. environmental staff explain how the forestry industry has taken steps to ensure that this endangered bird can survive in forestry areas with the result that stable populations now exist.
Forestry companies set aside land near Kaapschehoop when it was found to contain several nesting holes, and donated 350 hectares of prime blue swallow habitat to the Natal Parks Board to increase the size of the Blinkwater Nature Reserve. Where nesting holes are known to occur they are carefully protected and maintained, while others are being artificially constructed in open grasslands.
Positive steps taken by forestry companies to protect the endangered wattled crane, Grus carunculata, include reclaiming wetlands that were drained by previous land-owners, protecting nests from fire, and guarding nests and chicks. The industry has also been assisting Dr Allan Abrey of the Umgeni Bird Park by providing the free use of aircraft to survey nesting sites for occupancy and monitoring of chick development on forestry, farming and Natal Parks Board land.
Special measures have been taken to protect the palm-nut vulture, Gypohierax angolensis, and the bald ibis, Geronticus calvus, on forestry property, and colourful birds such as the Narina trogon, Apaloderma narina, the rare Cape parrot, Poicephalus robustus, and the isolated Delegorgue’s pigeon, Columba delegorguei, are protected in the indigenous forests found on forestry land. In Natal, Narina trogons and forest weavers, Ploceus bicolor, thrive in wattle plantations.
Several plantations have resident pairs of crowned eagles, Stephanoaetus coronatus. Longcrested eagles, Lophaetus occipitalis, gymnogenes, Polyboroides typus, and jackal, steppe and forest buzzards, Buteo rufofuscus, B. buteo vulpinus and B. oreophilus, are widely distributed in the forests. The rare bathawk, Macheyramphus alcumus, favoUrs the Transvaal forests. Forestry companies are assisting the Animal Rehabilitation Cintre ARC and the African Raptor Conservation Group, ARCG by providing areas for the return of rehabilitated raptors. Another creature in danger of extinction, the endemic minnow, Barbustreurensis, was saved by environmental staff who discovered a remnant population in a small stretch of the Blyde River and took steps to preserve it.
Forestry has also successfully conserved the southern Cape indigenous forest and , along with ecologists, is now researching the management of indigenous forest patches within commercial forestry estates, considering island biogeographic and “corridor” issues.
And back in the lab, forest scientists are also working on the clonal propagation of four medicinal tree species – Bersama sp., black stinkwood, Ocotea bullata, assegai, Curtisia dentata, and pepper bark, Warburgia salutaris – the natural populations of which are being severely depleted by bark-stripping. These indigenous trees will be produced in large quantities and distributed widely to protect the natural populations from total destruction.
One of the main reasons forestry is well placed to conserve biodiversity is that only about 75 per cent of the land held by the forestry companies will ever be planted up, say environmental staff. Unplanted areas exceed 400 000 hectares, embracing a vast number of veld types and species of flora and fauna.
Another criticism of forestry is that it uses valuable water resources. But what crop doesn’t? The difference between forestry and other agricultural crops is that foresters have attempted to measure and regulate how much water trees use, while this hasn’t been done for, say, maize or sugar-cane. A report currently put out by a major company shows that if 75 per cent of a catchment area is afforested, this will result in a reduction of average annual runoff of about ten per cent, which is allowable under the current permit system. But ten per cent is actually a worst – case scenario. Professor Roland Schulze, Professor of Hydrology at Natal University, says, ‘Afforestation in the Umgeni Cathment has resulted in only a six per cent decrease in water production, which is acceptable.’ In an independent EIA carried out for KwaZulu woodlots, the report by Professor Roland Schulze and Stephan Kienzle of Natal University stated that if plantations were kept small and were not planted too close to boreholes, streams or wetlands, water levels should remain unaffected.
Forest owners cannot – and also do not – ignore the downstream users of water; but by the same token the downstream users cannot assume that the entire cathment area is solely for their own benefit. In fact, one of the major problems for large storage dams such as Midmar and Albert Falls in Natal is the effect of small farm dams. There are over 1 000 in the Umgeni Catchment system, none of which requires a permit. After a dry period the small dams fill up first and it can take months before these dams spill over to fill the big dams. This is a far more serious problem to water resource managers than is commercial forestry.
Professor Peter Roberts, hydrologist and director of the ICFR, says, “Droughts are a recognized pattern of the South African weather cycle. Hence, the cry that forestry is using to much water is repeated every drought cycle: 1950, 1960 to 1966, 1982 to 1986 and now again in 1992/1993.” Roberts continues, “Of the total projected water use, forestry accounts for approximately eight per cent.” The Afforestation Permit System (APS), which the industry helped to create to regulate itself, not only stipulates the allowable reduction of water runoff in catchment areas, but also specifies the distance away from streams and wetlands that trees may be planted, as well as instructions for keeping riparian zones free of exotic invaders.
In fact, trees play an important part in purifying water and preventing soil erosion. Their roots bind the soil and their leaves soften the rainfall, letting water drip slowly to the ground and giving it more time to penetrate the soil instead of racing along and washing it away. Water finding its way into rivers and boreholes through an underground route is filtered. Trees also purify the air, absorbing large quantities of carbon dioxide, such as that produced by cars and coal-burning electricity plants, and producing huge amounts of oxygen. According to Trees for Africa, one large tree can provide enough oxygen for 40 people for a lifetime.
Several years ago, the World Bank suggested that, if conducted in an environmentally and socially sensitive manner, an increase in plantation forestry world wide could help to counter the deforestation taking place in South America by reducing the serious threat the greenhouse effect poses to our planet’s ecosystem.
Another advantage of trees is that they can grow in relatively poor soil. Says soil scientist Keith Snyman, a consultant based in Zululand, “In the poor, sandy soils of the Zululand coastal plain only timber really thrives ; not even sugar-cane does well because the root system doesn’t go deep enough.” In addition to reducing erosion on these sites, eucalypts actually improve soil quality through the cycling process where nutrient – rich top soil is created through mulch. Snyman says that companies are moving away from burning after harvest for just this reason.
Planting trees is not done haphazardly, says Snyman. Road and drainage plans are implemented and waterway dimensions are calculated to handle runoff. Soil conservation measures are taken, such as panel planting, where only selected panels of a slope are ploughed, and in areas where steep slopes are planted, or where soils are particularly sensitive, aerial harvesting is practised. “Sky lines are erected – aerial cableways which hoist timber into the air to prevent soil erosion from trees being dragged along the ground.” Some scientists within the industry are advocating further conservation measures such as letting a series of “relief panels” in a plantation lie fallow for six to 18 months to help rejuvenate soil moisture between rotations.
In the areas of KwaZulu where companies have established small growers schemes, the land is often severely degraded and thus trees can only improve the conditions. Johnson Khoza, an extension forester, says, “People come to us and say, ‘We used to grow vegetables here, but they stopped growing; then we grazed cattle here, but now the grass is gone. This land is finished – if we can get anything out of it now, we will be happy” and they show us a bare piece of ground.” If the rainfall in the area is sufficient, the new clonal hybrid eucalyptus will flourish, if weeded properly in the first year to eliminate competition. People are encouraged to plant crops between the trees during this first year before canopy cover prevents them from thriving. Legumes are beneficial to eucalypts because they fix atmospheric nitrogen in the soil,.
Because the people living in these isolated rural areas have few other ways to earn cash, relying on pensions and money sent by migrant workers, there  is real potential for social upliftment through small growers scemes. Says Khoza, “Some of these farmers see their one or two hectares of trees as their insurance policy or pension, and through this small-scale timber production  an informal sector of contractors is starting up, to assist with ploughing and harvesting.”
In the formal sector, forestry employs around 200 000 people; through the multiplier effect, the livelyhood of more than one million people is linked to forestry. Companies offer inhouse training to employees and tertiary training is also available. Schools, community centres, clinics, home-ownership schemes and home-skills advancement projects support forestry employees.
In the new South Africa, forestry can help meet some basic needs of the country’s burgeoning population. Members of the industry, along with non government organizations and rural communities, are exploring ways to make fuelwood, fodder, fruit and medicinal trees and building poles more widely available, as well as encouraging agroforestry in appropriate areas. One small company in the Cape has developed a high quality, low-cost wooden housing kit that could help solve the critical housing shortage.
As well as promoting social upliftment, forestry’s contribution to ecotourism is considerable. The major portion of the 400 000 hectares of unplanted forestry land include natural areas such as wetlands, grasslands, indigenous forests and woodlands, and visitor use is actively encouraged. Indeed, government forestry was instrumental in setting aside catchment areas, wilderness areas, hiking ways and picnic sites for tourists. The National Hiking Ways provide 1661 kilometres of paths for hikers, many of which pass through plantations as well as natural vegetation. During 1992/3, approximately 250 000 people made use of these trails. Private forestry companies are also pursuing the idea of extending public use of their lands for hiking, backpacking, horse trails, mountain biking, picnicking, freshwater angling and overnight accommodation in rustic huts.
Let’s face it. No one coming to South Africa in the ‘90s expects to find Kenya in the ‘20s. In fact, some ecotourists from the United States, especially, would approve of South Africa’s use of plantation forestry to meet its timber and paper needs.
In the Pacific Northwest US, indigenous old-growth forests are still being logged for commercial purposes and concerned citizens are calling for plantation forestry to replace this destruction of one of the country’s most beautiful and important resources. South Africa has protected its precious indigenous forests, with the help of the forestry industry.
Seen in a rational light, forestry is not an enemy of the environment – there is no intention of eradicating the small percentage of remaining ten virgin grasslands in South Africa. The forestry industry plays an important and constructive role in conservation and the economy, and has great potential for social upliftment. Trees are a renewable resource, and the benefits they bring to soil, water and air quality are huge.
While mistakes have been made in the past, the forestry industry is diligently enforcing its code of practice through regular, in-depth environmental audits on plantation land, and companies continue to care for and set aside Natural Heritage Sites. Far from being ‘green wastelands”, forest lands are teeming with life, and contribute to, rather than detract from, South Africa’s ecotourism potential. Let’s address the real problems of over-population, over-grazing and the general environmental illiteracy in our country. That would be a positive step toward preserving our natural heritage.   

Africa – Environment & Wildlife
JANUARY / FEBRUARY 1994 VOL. 2 NO. 1

The Big Lie - Is There Place for Green Politics?
By Koos Marais

In this provocative – and possibly also controversial - article the Author sharply criticise the owners of plantations, and wonders if it has not become time for Green Politics in South Africa.

The well known fire hazard warning road sign, "Look what you have done", depicting a weeping buck in a burnt out forest is surely one of the most hypocritical examples of nature conservation in South Africa.
In a way it is typical of our South African’s distorted sense of nature conservation.
The people and organisations who have their financial assets established in thousands and thousands of hectares exotic Eucalyptus and Pine plantations try to create the public impression that fires in plantations impact negatively on the wild animals and their environment, and that such fires should be seen as a national disaster. They use the sugary Walt Disney method to evoke sympathy, so that people must take care not to burn down their "forests". Actually they are only concerned about their investments.

It is these exotic plantations that are one of the biggest destroyers of our natural heritage. Before the wood moguls planted their exotic plantations, the plains and rolling hills were the prime habitat of animals such as the mountain Reedbuck and the Oribi. I mention these two species specifically as they are seriously threatened by lack of suitable habitat. But readers must realise that these same grasslands and hills now covered in pine needles and eucalyptus leaves once teemed with animals such as the Eland, Redhartebeest, Blesbuck, Gnu’s and Zebras. In contrast to the mountain Reedbuck and Oribi, these animals can adapt to a different environment.
These days we are so used to seeing the black wildebeest and zebra in the bushveld only, that we seem to think it has always been like that. Actually it was South Africa’s grassy plains that teemed with life.. Unfortunately the early European settlers in the Orange Free State, the Transvaal and Natal quickly realised that these grassy plains are also ideally suited to cattle, sheep and maize farms, and also plantations..
Where it was flat they planted maize, and where it was slightly more hilly sugar-cane, pineapples, bananas and also pine and eucalyptus plantations were established.
Soon the wild animals had to move on.
All that remained of the natural bush was in the Transvaal Lowveld, and the Northern Transvaal. Today we think the Buffalo belongs in the National Parks only. I wonder how many buffalo, Eland and Black Wildebeest roamed where today the earth is being ploughed by Western Transvaal farmers.

But surely, worst of all is that picture of the weeping buck. The audacity of these clever foresters. Their plantations stand on soil, which used to be the home of our most beautiful buck. As far as I’m concerned, it is not the fires which makes the buck cry but the "forests" themselves….. the trees which invaded their beloved grasslands.
Recently we also had the example of the paper mill which spilt toxic material into the crocodile river. Thousands of fish died. And then a company spokesperson publicly declared that no harm was done to any people or animals! Of course there is many examples of activities that destroy habitat. To a large degree the destruction of our indigenous forests by timber merchants, farmers and plantation moguls also meant the end of our forest game, like the Blue Duikers, Red Duikers, Soenies and Nyalas. Beautiful forests containing Yellow wood, Kiaat and Stinkwood were felled. Think also of the Knysna forests. But also in Natal the overwhelming majority of our coastal forests had to submit to the onslaught of developers, foresters, farmers and loggers.
Think about it. Our most beautiful buck are our Oribies, Mountain Rheedbuck, Blue Duikers, Red Duikers, Soenies. But these animals are faced with extinction, due to the loss of their life blood, their habitat.

These plantations are sterile, lifeless tree farms, which means nothing to our indigenous fauna and flora. If all the alien Pine trees in South Africa should burn down tomorrow, it would be no loss to our natural heritage, least of all to our buck species.
Of course we need these tree farms, we cant do without them. To that I will agree. The fact remains, the companies delivering essential services also carries a great responsibility towards nature, our country and its people. It has become time that they fulfil this obligation in a transparent way, on a daily basis. The big corporations ought to rehabilitate the damage done to the environment, even if it takes 200 million rand. At the same time they should make money or land available for the establishment of more natural heritage sites, for the rehabilitation of damaged soil, and the extermination of invader alien trees.
Look at the invasion of wattle, jacaranda and seringa trees. A good example is the historical Klapperkop monument in Pretoria. The whole hill is covered in wattle trees. Lets chop those alien trees down, and rehabilitate the grass, natural trees and game. Such a project would create jobs (and fire wood) to many disadvantaged people, and at the same time a small nature reserve could be established in the heart of Pretoria. And let the big companies contribute. Millions of hectares of land has already been destroyed. Lets start somewhere, and try to rectify the areas where it is still possible.

As South Africans we imagine ourselves to be such great conservationists. We are especially fond of pointing incriminating northwards. We soothe our conscience by saying "See how we are protecting the elephant in the Kruger National Park, and see how we saved the rhinoceros from extinction". I say this is pure hogwash. Of course we are glad about the elephant and the rihno, but that is not enough. In any case, South Africa "owns" only 7000 of Africa’s 700 000 elephants. Is this such a big achievement? And these elephant are confined to the Kruger, the Addo and some smaller reserves. What makes us better than the other African country’s? We are as destructive to nature as our brothers on the other side of the Limpopo. Country’s like Botswana and Zimbabwe has percentage wise much more land set aside for nature conservation. South Africa is far behind in this regard. We ought to acquire much more land for nature reserves.

Personally I am tired of the politics of the day, it brings us nowhere. Traditional party politics are boring, and creates more problems than it solves.

Maybe it has become time for green politics. Around the world this trend is on the increase. In country’s like Germany and Australia these so called "greenies" are becoming a political power. Unfortunately these greenies are slightly radical, but still plays an important role. They use their support to force political parties to make decisions which affects nature conservation positively. They don’t rule, but as pressure groups they are extremely effective. On issues such as hunting though, they lose credibility.

Magnum  July 1990

Industrial tree plantations: a growing problem
By Ricardo Carrere
International Coordinator World Rainforest Movement www.wrm.org.uy

Industrial tree plantations are becoming a growing problem for people and the environment. For a number of years, the World Rainforest Movement has been researching and campaigning on this issue and will launch a coordinated campaign later this year. The present article aims at trying to involve South Africans -who for well known reasons have been more or less isolated from the outside world- in a worldwide campaign on the plantation model prevailing in this and many other Southern countries.

Tree deserts in the South
Tree plantations are neither good nor bad in themselves: it depends on their scale, their aimed objective and the type of plantations, as well as on the natural and socioeconomic environment where they are implemented. The type of plantations which are becoming a growing problem are characterized by their large scale and uniformity. At the national level, they consist of scores of thousands of hectares -and in cases such as Chile, South Africa, Brazil and Indonesia, surpassing a million hectares- of tree monocultures. Such plantations are based on some few species -usually eucalyptus or pines- bred for rapid growth, uniformity and high yield of raw material. Planted in even-aged stands, they require intensive preparation of the soil, fertilization, regular spacing of trees, seedling selection, mechanical or chemical weeding, use of pesticides and mechanized harvesting in short rotations.

These vast monocultures are increasingly being promoted in the South, where inexpensive land, low labout costs and fast tree growth combine to make wood especially cheap. As these extensive plantations begin to invade native grasslands, agricultural lands and forests the results, in country after oountry, have been impoverishment, environmental degradation and growing local opposition. From Chile to Portugal, from Brazil to Indonesia, from Uruguay to Spain, from South Africa to New Zealand, from India to Thailand, people are organizing to oppose what they have called tree deserts, green cancer, green invading army, selfish trees or socioeconomic deserts.

Why the plantation boom?
Tree monocrops are not the result of a locally expressed need nor are they meant to favour local people. Their real aim is to ensure the global paper industry with cheap raw material for an ever increasing overconsumption of paper and paper products, particularly in the North. As northern forests are depleted as a result of the paper industry’s growing demand for wood fibers, and as the northern environmental movement becomes stronger in its defense of the remnants of old-growth forests, the industry is moving its future supply to the South.
A number of different actors are making this shift possible. Multilateral Development Banks,”aid” agencies, northern consultants, technology suppliers, state investment and export credit agencies are among the main external actors which provide the impetus and the financial and technical support for the spread of plantations all over the world. Internally, national governments -pushed by the above-said external actors- provide a number of overt or hidden subsidies which allow these plantations to be implemented. Such subsidies may be direct (e.g. payment of a large percentage of the plantation cost, tax breaks, etc.) or indirect (e.g. government forestry research, road and port infrastructure, soft loans, etc.).

Are plantations good for the environment?
“Trees are good” and “we are planting forests” are arguments widely publicized by plantation proponents to confuse the public. However, these plantations are not forests but crops, and they are not only crops but large-scale, rapid growth tree monocrops. Such characterists result firstly in impacts on water. All plants function as water pumps: soil nutrients reach the leaves dissolved in water. The faster the growth, the bigger the plant and the larger the area they occupy, the more water they will consume. Such is the case of these industrial tree plantations. South Africa is probably the only country in the world where all actors (from industry to NGOs) agree that plantations produce an important impact on water. In most of the other countries, forestry “experts” deny this fact, even when local people denounce the depletion of water resources.
A second environmental impact relates to soils. Plantation trees and management result in changes in soil structure and chemical composition. Short term rotations, coupled with the use of heavy machinery expose the soil to erosion. Important amounts of nutrients are exported with the removal of logs. Changes in soil flora and fauna resulting from the chosen plantation tree species -usually eucalyptus and pines- imply changes in the nutrient cycle and even in the original soil structure. Many of these changes are irreversible.
Thirdly, large-scale plantations impact on local ecosystems and their native flora and fauna. For the majority of local wildlife, plantations don’t provide neither food nor shelter nor opportunities for reproduction. The few species which manage to survive can become pests, either to the plantations themselves or to other local productions. The impacts are not restricted to the plantation area (where they are obviously more intense, particularly on local flora which tends to disappear completely), but can have devastating effects on other related regional ecosystems such as grasslands, wetlands and water courses.

More problems at the local level
All the above environmental problems also impact directly on local communities, that will have less available water resources for their crops, cattle and homes, less soils available for their productive activities and less free access to local plant and animal resources which provide food, medicine, fodder, fuel, building materials and many other goods.
Industrial plantations also bring about further problems, among which perhaps one of the main ones is the expulsion of rural people to make way for large plantations. These people can either become plantation workers (usually seasonal and casual labour where working conditions vary from bad to terrible) or migrate to the cities’ shanty towns, because plantations create less jobs than the agricultural activities which they substitute. Large-scale plantation companies also bring about important changes in the local power balance because of their economic strength and become the main decision-makers in whole regions. Nationally, dependence on a commodity such as this (be it pulpwood, chips or pulp), subject to wild tumbles in price, implies following the same path as with previous export commodities such as sugar, cotton or coffee, which have had disastrous economic, social and environmental effects in many southern countries. This new export commodity, promoted all over the South, offers no assurance that what happened with the former will not happen again with this one: overproduction followed by price falls.

Stop industrial plantations!
South Africa is an excellent example -though there are many others- to show that plantations are not aimed at ameliorating local peoples’ quality of life. In a country such as this, where a third of the population depends on firewood as their main source of energy, the 1.5 million hectares of tree plantations are not aimed at supplying people with this basic need but increasingly at exporting logs, chips or pulp to foreign consumers.
People in Thailand, Uruguay, South Africa, Portugal, Malaysia, Mexico, Indonesia, Hawaii, Brazil, Congo, Phillipines and many others are joining their struggles to put a stop on this socially and environmentally unsustainable forestry model. The struggle is not against any particular tree species or against other forms of locally-approved tree plantations. It is against an industrial model which only serves the interests of a few against the basic needs of the majority.
For more details about all these struggles see Tree Plantations: impacts and struggles http://www.wrm.org.uy/english/plantations/material/bookplantations.htm

 Published in the Environmental Justice Networking Forum (South Africa), Winter 1997

Plantations – Green Wastelands?
Philip Owen – 1999

I live on a protected reserve, in the Houtbosloop valley, Mpumalanga, South Africa.
The immediate area surrounding the reserve is under exotic plantations, and it is sad to see the effect of this model on the environment.

I often think of the mountain as a living entity. I imagine every living thing being luminous, so that they would glow at night. I like to think that plants would have a soft glow, trees like the giant wild figs or beautiful Stinkwoods would  glow brighter. Insects would glitter, a mouse would gleam, an owl radiate, a leopard  shine. 
In the reserve I see the mountain, shimmering with life. 
When I look beyond, at the vast areas of exotics I see a monotonous feeble glow. 
Exotic tree plantations ARE green wastelands. They smother the indigenous life, not allowing enough water and light to sustain growth.
No plants, no insects, no birds, no reptiles, no mammals. 
Small pockets of indigenous growth is preserved, but it is not enough to compensate for loss of habitat. 
Programs are in place to clear clogged water ways, but it is a uphill babble due to lack of funds and manpower.
 Many residents of this region experience escalating water shortages. 
Legislation is in place to secure wet-lands, but it is not inforced due to lack of man power.
I believe no more new planting permits should be issued, until the exhausting plantations are well under control..
Long term plans should be instigated to scale down exotic trees, in order  to replace with more environmentally friendly produce.
Hemp farming may be a alternative, as pulp can also be produced.
Harvests could occur on a yearly basis, a practice which should be more labor intensive.  
 Water is life, and one of the things you don't appreciate until you don't have it anymore.
Water shortage could lead to serious conflict in the future, as many countries in southern Africa share rivers as borders. In September 1998, troops from S.A and Botswana invaded Lesotho to quell political uprising. Fierce fighting occurred to secure the Katse dam, a vital link in  the Lesotho Highlands Water project.  This project hold water reserves for use in S.A.  It has been suggested that the "war"  was motivated, at least in part, by the need to secure the strategic water reserve.
                    
 In the face of ever increasing  energy consumption  man-kind is on the verge of a major crisis. This is a time when we should be taking care of the earth, treating it with respect, correcting  the wrongs of the past, as our own  survival depends upon bio-diversity.
I think we should adapt our way of thinking, recognize our dependence upon nature. Our environment shapes us, therefore we need to keep it healthy.   

Around me, despite good rains, countless fountains are drying up.