News

Forest plantations are essential to combat climate change

Sponsors

Marcos Tricallotis Campaña, PhD, Vice President of the Environment, Natural Heritage, and Climate Change Commission of the Regional Council of the Valparaíso Region.

According to evidence from various scientific studies, native forests are essential for the livelihoods of many local communities globally: they can alleviate poverty and provide significant income for people in more humble conditions. Furthermore, if managed sustainably, small forestry businesses can have long-term positive environmental and social impacts on society as a whole. For example, some companies in Magallanes have been able to sustainably manage extensive areas of lenga (Nothofagus pumilio) forests, with low environmental impact and positive social impacts through job creation and benefits to local communities.
The wood cellulose fiber we need is present in every aspect of our lives. From the furniture, books, and boxes that make up our homes and workplaces to countless types of packaging and wrappers, along with various cellulose fiber components used in housing and industry. The applications are endless and will only increase as demand grows for noble and sustainable materials capable of capturing carbon dioxide (CO2), especially in industrialized housing construction—now an urgent government need to address the housing deficit. In fact, wood has every advantage as a sustainable construction material, in contrast to concrete, which has an immense carbon footprint. However, relying solely on harvesting wood from native forests has a serious limitation: the slow growth to reach commercial harvest, which can take 40 to 50 years for certain species like oak, and up to 110 to 120 years for longer-rotation species such as lenga. These long cycles ensure the forest's natural regeneration capacity after harvest, but commercially, they cannot supply wood at the speed the world demands.
This is where monoculture plantations of exotic species like pine and eucalyptus play a tremendous role. First, monocultures have much shorter commercial cycles—25 years for pine and 12 to 15 years for eucalyptus. These plantations help "relieve pressure" on native forests, preventing their extinction due to their slow regeneration capacity. Second, there is also scientific evidence that well-managed forest plantations can provide valuable habitat for threatened or endangered species and even contribute to improving an area's biodiversity.
Third, socially and economically, properly managed forest plantations can have a positive impact on local communities and workers. Many of them are an attractive economic option for small landowners, both indigenous and non-indigenous, as demonstrated by the state's experience in reforestation incentive programs.
Finally, it is known that forest plantations, through the forest bonus system of Decree Law No. 701 of 1974 and its subsequent amendment via Law No. 19.561 of 1998, have—according to ODEPA studies—sequestered over 44.5 million tons of CO2, which is now an integral part of forest biomass. Although the amount of carbon sequestered by plantations compared to native forests is lower, they still play a crucial role as carbon sinks. Consequently, it is regrettable that today—despite estimates from INFOR indicating nearly 3 million hectares of land suitable for forestry (i.e., degraded)—there has been no renewal of this decree, which, despite past mistakes, has had a tremendous positive impact on the national economy and, not to mention, the environment by rescuing thousands of hectares from erosion. Moreover, given Chile's commitments at COP27 in Egypt, it is unclear how our country will meet the goal of managing 200,000 hectares of native forests and afforesting 200,000 hectares of vegetation-deprived land by 2030. So far, much noise but little action. Progress? None to speak of.
Unfortunately, the current administration of President Boric insists on the stubbornness of not only failing to strengthen the plantation forestry industry through incentives for small and medium landowners but also explicitly excluding monocultures from Law No. 21.455 on climate change, recently enacted this year. I perceive only deeply ideological and vindictive motives against a successful industry that has transformed southern Chile into a hub of progress and well-being for its inhabitants. It is no surprise that two of the most successful industries Chile has ever seen—forestry and salmon farming—are in the crosshairs of a certain ideological sector. All because they had the "sin" of being established during the military government. The goal is to eradicate them, not improve them. You be the judge.