The chairman of the Portuguese Farmers' Confederation is advocating for the forestry sector to return under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Agriculture in order to facilitate its economic development.

The Portuguese Farmers' Confederation (CAP) will once again intensify its activities in the forestry sector, as it believes it is vital for the government to recognise that this industry must develop. Chairman Eduardo Oliveira e Sousa believes that sustainability goals will not be met unless there is an economic pillar in addition to the social and environmental ones.

Is there still a place for economics in Portuguese forestry policy, given that you believe there is a production-averse political environment in the forestry sector?

This question was the foundation of some of our seminars, and its purpose was to be slightly provocative to stir up the political environment and say: “Listen, if there is a continuous development, and it is visible in the figures, then you do not understand the harm you are causing to one of the key sectors of the economy.”

What do these figures reveal?

INE data show that afforestation and reforestation are declining rapidly and consistently because the oversight of the forestry sector has changed. Forestry production has fallen by 14% compared to the highs of the decade. Since 2015, the value of forest growing stock in the forestry sector has been plummeting because it cannot be replaced at the same rate at which it is being harvested. The same is happening with the forestry gross value added (GVA), as one is directly linked to the other. Therefore, there is no positive sign in these four points that reflect the consequences of the policy changes initiated in 2015 (which reached their climax in early 2017, when the so-called Forest Act package came into force, which was accompanied by the even somewhat unfortunate claim that it was “the greatest forestry reform since the time of D. Dinis”). Fortunately, we have a pulp and paper industry that adds value to Portuguese eucalyptus production, but it is not enough; it has to be imported. Is maintaining the ban on planting eucalyptus justifiable?

What has failed?

Unfortunately, when the forestry sector was transferred from the Ministry of Agriculture to the Ministry of the Environment, it was detached from the economy, and the results are clearly visible. If the Ministry of the Environment, when expressing its forestry policy, had used the word “fomento” (development) even once, everything would have been different. But this word has been deleted from what the government calls forestry policy. The forest has ceased to be a driver of the economy and has become primarily a sector for landscape transformation, biodiversity promotion—which, of course, is welcome—and the setting of carbon and environmental goals, which is almost disconnected from all the other vectors that make up the forestry sector as a whole.

Specifically, what has changed for producers?

The Ministry of Agriculture is one of the ministries of the economy, and its task is to promote and defend agricultural production, which also includes forestry. Therefore, figures such as forest planting and reforestation show an upward curve from 2011 to 2013, which can be explained by the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) instruments designed to support productive forestry activities, the former PRODER. Then we arrived at the RDP, and the line began to fall and shrink. In 2019, we were 36% below the decade's peak in terms of investment in afforestation and reforestation, which reflects the forced decline of the sector.

The Basic Law on Forest Policy theoretically includes expansion and increasing productivity, while the National Forest Strategy includes improving management, internationalisation and value creation. Since 2015, the stance has been the opposite. After the 2017 fires, measures were also introduced whereby the costs of civil protection measures, such as buffer zones around villages, are covered by forest owners. This responsibility must be taken on by the state.

Do you agree that it is all based on “prejudice” against certain tree species?

Yes, we must eliminate the myth that eucalyptus is a harmful tree to the land that consumes more water than other trees. This is all untrue and scientifically disproven. I know of vineyards and orchards established on land that had been forested with eucalyptus, which have kept the land in better condition than when it was scrubland. There are no bad trees in nature. The same could happen with pine, although it would be more difficult because it grows in sandy soils that are less suitable for agricultural activity. Pine requires a well-managed protection plan to eradicate once and for all the pine pests that reduce its value.

Knowledge must be at the forefront of policy for political decisions to be sustainable; otherwise, we are stepping back with one foot from sustainability, namely the economic level.

Timber production is not sufficient for market needs.

Entrepreneurs want greater access to wood resources. Portugal, which is relatively small, has contracts with the forestry sector, and the government should look at that and say: “Yes, this is promoting our national economy, it is keeping people in the territory, it is creating value and jobs. Fortunately, we have a pulp and paper industry that adds value to Portuguese eucalyptus production, but even that is not enough. Is maintaining the ban on planting eucalyptus useful? This country is pushing the boundaries of science and technology and focusing on politics in its decisions. This has led to the depletion of the primary sector. There is a saying in the forestry sector: “I plant cork oaks for my grandchildren, I plant pines for my children, and I plant eucalyptus for myself”. There must be a place for all three, because I need the eucalyptus economy to maintain the pine, and then with the funds generated from the pine, to maintain the cork oak. If there is no economy, I have nothing, and the abandonment of land is linked to that.

What can be done?

The Portuguese Farmers' Confederation decided that it would intensify its activities in the forestry sector because it cannot comfortably coexist with the way these indicators are presented. The government must acknowledge that the sector must develop. We must get rid of dogmas and myths. Knowledge must be at the forefront of policy for political decisions to be sustainable; otherwise, we are stepping back with one foot from sustainability, which is the economic level. No matter how much money is received—it is the same as filling a swimming pool with the drain plug open... This is a suitable moment for reflection because there is an absolute majority and no need to negotiate in a parliamentary environment. If the government has the desire to overhaul forestry policy together with the sector, the situation can change.
Interview originally published in Forest Producers magazine No. 9, November 2022; it can be read in full in the digital edition https://produtoresflorestais.pt/quero-receber-a-edicao-da-revista-em-papel/
Source: https://produtoresflorestais.pt/precisamos-de-retirar-dogmas-e-mitos-do-caminho/