Dr Arne Witt, biodiversity specialist of the Centre for Agriculture and Biosciences International (Cabi), Wilderness, writes:
The article by Cobus Meiring of the Garden Route Environmental Forum (Gref) ("Revival of commercial forestry in the Southern Cape a huge relief", George Herald, 25 September) extolling the merits of re-establishing commercial forestry in the Southern Cape creates the impression that plantations are something that we should embrace.
This appears to be based on the tenet that land that was previously under commercial plantations has now "succumbed to dense infestations of invasive alien plants".
The irony in this statement is that the very trees that are grown by commercial forestry are often invasive, increasing fire risk and posing the biggest threat to biodiversity and precious water resources.
Just because trees in a plantation are grown in neat little rows, equidistant from each other, does not mean they are not invasive. So replacing stands of invasive alien plants with a monoculture of one invasive alien plant species does not resolve anything, it merely ensures an ongoing supply of seeds of that one species in the landscape, fuelling its spread.
That one species is likely to be one of the numerous pine species that pose the biggest threat to the Cape Floral Kingdom, where numerous native species are already on the edge of extinction.
Yes, commercial plantations will generate jobs, there is no doubt about that. In many respects it is a necessary evil, because we need timber for construction, but at what cost? According to researchers, the costs outweigh the benefits. Water scarcity will ultimately constrain economic growth, leading to fewer job opportunities in the long term.
We are trading our long-term future for short-term gain. Would it not be better to create jobs by employing people to remove invasive plants, funded through levies or other sources, than to plant trees that will impact negatively on water resources and biodiversity, and fuel fires?
