by Eric Boa
Eucalypts in the Democratic Republic of Congo (photo: Eric Boa)
There are two sharply opposing views on eucalypts, a genus of over 700 species native mainly to Australia, and mostly trees. A small number of species are grown extensively around the world, well suited to tropical and warmer temperate climates. A neighbour’s eucalyptus here in London grew to over 15 metres tall and around a metre in diameter at the base. It took two days to remove it.
In Europe, eucalypts commonly occur as ornamental and amenity trees. They line the roads in the southern part of Italy. There are plantations in Spain and Portugal which produce pulp for paper. Pulp production is important in South Africa, where fast-growing eucalypt plantations are highly productive. The trees are cut back after six years to encourage new shoot development. Eucalypts grown for poles take much longer to reach a useful size.
Eucalyptus and pines are the two main groups of trees used globally in plantations. Brazil is the second largest grower of eucalypts after India, also for pulp production but predominantly for producing charcoal. Brazilians are keen churrasquerios and churrasquerias, or barbecue enthusiasts. Never have I been presented with so much meat to eat for a single meal. Yet the overwhelming bulk of charcoal is destined for giant furnaces used in steel making.
The Brazilians have cleverly designed ways to maximize the yield from eucalyptus plantations through genetic improvement and mass production of seedlings. Without eucalyptus Brazil would have to import coal to fuel the steel furnaces. Elsewhere, other uses for eucalyptus range from poles for construction and scaffolding to small-scale use as firewood. It’s a common sight to see mature eucalypts with hacked off branches in Ethiopia. Where else can households readily find a cheap source of fuel?
Fence-making in Ethiopia (photo: Eric Boa)
Let’s pause for a breath. On the plus side we have a tree which is fast-growing, versatile, easy to propagate and suited to a wide range of growing conditions. What’s not to like about eucalypts? Why is it a Marmite Tree, loved by some, hated by others? (For those unfamiliar with Marmite, it’s a yeast extract, often spread on bread, whose taste and smell sharply divides opinion. I dislike it. Intensely*.) The arguments against eucalyptus go roughly like this: it has a high need for water, burns like billy-oh and is a threat where fire risks are high, spreads rapidly to new areas and suppresses local biodiversity. Ouch.
These are powerful claims which suggest that eucalypts do more harm than good. The simple response is to ask what would replace eucalyptus. Are there other trees which use less water, burn less rapidly, are not invasive and support local biodiversity? There’s more to consider. Are these replacement trees as fast growing, versatile and suited to different growing conditions as eucalyptus?
Finding a tree or trees which meet all these requirements is never going to be easy. Eucalyptus is a successful plantation tree and industries have adapted to its characteristics. I did a short study of a pine disease in Spain not so long ago and raised the opportunity to grow species less susceptible than Monterey pine, the most popular pine favoured by timber mills. Industry people balked at the cost of having to retool and the effort convincing customers that a replacement species fully met their needs.
I’ve heard the criticism of eucalypts from many sources with a shared concern for environmental impacts. Resolving their antipathy with those in favour, or indeed those highly reliant on eucalypts, is never going to be easy. A more constructive approach is to look back to the late 1970s and 1980s, when the first major criticisms of eucalyptus began to emerge. Until then eucalypts had been successfully grown and accepted in many countries for decades previously. Eucalypts were introduced in the late 19th century in India.
When I worked in Bangladesh from 1981 to 1987 I was joined for a short period by an Australian forester called John Davidson. He lived and breathed eucalyptus and was a notable advocate for what he saw as its many sterling qualities. I knew little then about a growing anti-eucalyptus sentiment in neighbouring India. John wrote a pamphlet which I suspect few know about today: Setting aside the notion that eucalypts are always bad. John was worried that increasing calls to stop planting eucalypts, expressed forcibly in the 1980s by non-governmental organisations (NGOs), would cause irreparable damage to a useful tree.
The NGOs had picked up on a spreading dislike of eucalypts among farmers in India. It’s worth noting that in 1993, some years after the anti-eucalyptus campaign started, and had gained considerable support, that India still had nearly five million hectares of eucalypts. This masks a steep decline in popularity. The farmers reaction against growing eucalypts began with a clash of expectations. The National Social Forestry Campaign began in the late 1970s with support from the national government and donors. Farmers were encouraged to grow trees for subsistence needs: charcoal, firewood, small poles for fencing, construction and so on. On-farm production reduced pressure on native forests and, so the argument went, put farmers in charge of their own needs.
The tree most favoured by farmers was eucalyptus. It had a small crown, so that more trees could be planted in a given area. It did not attract birds (which pillaged nearby crops) and wasn’t eaten by roaming livestock. Moreover, eucalypts grew straight, perhaps their biggest attraction. Farmers were motivated not by subsistence needs but the opportunity to sell poles to an expanding market. From 1981 to 1988 farmers planted 1.7 million hectares of eucalyptus. The expected income never materialised; market demand was less than expected. More crucially, eucalypt yields were disappointing.
Did the National Social Forestry Campaign not understand that project expectations were different from those of farmers? Were farmers unrealistic? Whatever the reason, the dramatic collapse in popularity of eucalypts also led to a wider consideration of possible failings. Attention focused on low yields. The quality of seeds sold to farmers was poor and management of trees was neglected. It’s difficult to say who or what was ultimately responsible for the poor outcomes and it doesn’t really matter. Eucalypts gained a bad reputation for many which continues to this day.
There’s no denying that eucalypts are thirsty, or that they suppress the growth of plants nearby. But then again so do many other trees. There is no such thing as an ecological free lunch. There’s a price to pay for fast-growing trees that, under the right management, are highly productive and versatile.
As I’ve argued before (see a previous article: Is Planting Native Trees Preferable?), there’s never a simple answer to ecological dilemmas. Farmers in India were let down. They also had unrealistic expectations. NGOs stood up for the farmers but also helped to unfairly damn a highly useful tree. Native trees are wonderful and do all sorts of good yet fall short of meeting all the needs of people. I’ve also learnt a lesson. Maybe I should learn to love Marmite. Especially if it’s the only food available on my desert island.
*Whereas the editor adores it.
I'm with your editor! I have Marmite in my cupboard and I used to have a Eucalyptus tree in my suburban garden. It had to go, as instead of growing straight up it leaned heavily towards my neighbour's garden and no doubt greedily drank what its fellow trees needed. But surely, like any native species, it is best suited to its natural habitat, whereas Marmite has to fight it's way to every kitchen shelf and is as divisive as Brexit.