As apparent from my case studies, small and medium-sized forest operations had less sophisticated means to execute their forest operations. This has had mixed outcomes in their environmental performance, depending on the type of operation and business orientation, as described below.
The smaller the firm, the less sophisticated means to perform their operations: Some forest owners and contractors’120 experiences revealed that forest operations combined different methods, and that these may be executed at any time of the year. Such methods – in the case of timber harvesting – would range from traditional harvest using animal power (oxen) and chainsaws, especially in small forest operations as well as Indigenous communities121, to more sophisticated means to perform those operations, including machinery such as skidders and “three-wheels” (Chilean term for ergo loggers) in medium-sized122 forestry businesses. It is important to note that such forestry machines would cause more environmental impact than the sophisticated machinery used by large forest operations, or traditional harvesting methods using animal power and chainsaws123.
119 Interviews with R-VIII-01 and R-MB-03.
120 Interviews with I-VIII-02, PFB-VIII-r01, CT-VIII-t01, CT-VIII-t02 and PFB-VIII-s01. 121 Interview with I-VIII-02.
122 Interview with PFB-VIII-t01. 123 Interview with CT-VIII-t01.
Figure 3.5 Use of “three-wheels” (ergo logger) in medium-sized forest operations. Source: courtesy of the Forestry and Timber Forum.
In addition, some operations neglected the impact of their operations on the environment. This was reflected, for example, in the period of the year when forest operations may be executed: some forestry businesses performed their operations at any time of the year124, even during wet seasons, when negative impacts on the soil are more likely. One forest owner125 argued that the availability of contractors was the main factor to consider when deciding to perform timber harvesting.
Therefore, some operations caused significant environmental damage, as stated by this contractor:
“Well, sole traders leave the minimum [buffer area] as nobody controls anything here. Sole traders are only interested in getting the most; they do not leave those required 10 or 20 metres [of buffer area]. There is no enforcement by CONAF, or by anybody else…they [small forest owners and their contractors] get to some places and just cut. They are not concerned about that [following regulations]. (interview with CT-VIII-t01).
The above example also reflected the financial pressures experienced by small forest owners, illustrated in the phrase “getting the most”. Another contractor disclosed another unsustainable forestry practice related to the management of buffer zones when performing timber harvesting:
124 Interviews with PFB-VIII-r01 and PFB-VIII-s01. 125 Interview with PFB-VIII-s01.
“Yes, because they [small forest owners] take much less care, leaving tress to fall into water courses, and nobody controls that. As they are small they do not have any care, they do what they feel that needs to be done, and that’s all.” (interview with CT-VIII-t02).
In the opinion of many respondents, some small plantation forest owners seemed to share a feeling of impunity due to the low possibility of law enforcement related to their activities.
A minority of small and medium-sized firms made efforts to meet regulations: Although a relatively high proportion of small forest owners appeared to engage in unsustainable practices, a minority of firms acted differently. Some small – and to a greater extent medium- sized – firms took legal compliance seriously, as much as they could. For example, one contractor observed:
“Yes, you still need to take care of the buffer zones, if there are trees inside those zones you have to leave them, to avoid damaging the environment. This is because of the nature; the native forests must be protected. Anywhere you find buffer zones, slopes and near watercourses you do not have to touch then at all”. (interview with CT-VIII-t02).
Many contractors working for large forestry businesses follow commonly accepted procedures when performing their work on small and medium-sized operations, including the felling, and extraction 126 of trees. This may be explained because many of these small and medium-sized enterprises sold their timber to sawmills and pulp mills of large enterprises, particularly large forest corporations, and they needed to demonstrate that they had harvested the timber legally.
Agroforestry is more environmentally-friendly: Forestry practices seemed to be more environmentally-friendly when combined with agriculture and livestock production. Two small forest owners127 reported that this approach encouraged them to perform more sustainable practices. One of the forest owners summed this up as follows:
“For example, we take care not to spill oil everywhere; we try to recover part of the biomass that is left in the field. We don’t do slash-and-burn practices, we have an agreement with the CMPC [a large forest corporation] whereby they harvest our trees and clean up the field, and they take away the biomass and it is converted into energy. Of course, that you’re losing too much when you take that topsoil out from your soil because you remove an important amount…but if I managed to recycle all that stuff with worms it’d be a big business since it would increase the fertility of my soil. There are also
126 Interview with CT-VIII-t02.
chemical products we do not apply because we have other crops, cows, calves, etc.”.” (interview with PFB-VIII-r01).
Overall, my case studies showed mixed outcomes concerning the environmental performance of small and medium-sized plantation forestry businesses: while many forest owners gave little consideration to the environmental impacts of their forestry practices, a minority of forest owners, and particularly agroforestry businesses, followed sustainable forestry practices.