Gonçalo Ribeiro Telles: “Cleaning forests is a myth”

The country is burning again, as it does every summer. The event is predictable but not preventable, and the topics are always the same: the eucalyptus and pine forests, the failures of civil protection, the poor working conditions for our firefighters. Now we add climate change, which doesn't deserve any attention from the political powers. Twenty-two years have passed since we conducted this interview with Gonçalo Ribeiro Telles, landscape architect and "father" of Portuguese environmentalism. He hasn't lost a shred of relevance. It's worth rereading his words and understanding how we've learned nothing from history, learned nothing from our mistakes, continuing year after year to indulge in the celebration of the eucalyptus grove.

What are the causes of this calamity?

The main cause is poor land use planning, namely, extensive afforestation with pine and eucalyptus trees, used for pulp and construction. The problem was a bad idea for the country: that Portugal is a forested country. The idea was put forward that, except for 12% of fertile soil, the rest only has economic potential in terms of industrial forestry.

Where does this idea come from?

It's an old idea that began in the 1930s with the destruction, also by an extensive forest, of the mountain communities of northern Portugal, whose economy was based on livestock farming. The difficulties faced by agriculture led to the desire to transform large areas of the country—now 36%—into industrial forests. This campaign transformed forestry, which was the basic profession, into a forestry profession, to meet major economic interests. There was also another campaign, the wheat campaign, in which the country was organized around this crop, based on the myth of Portugal's independence as bread. Besides land for wheat, everything else, in an economicist agricultural system, must be forestry and timber production. The result is clear to see.

We then became a forest country.

The Romans divided the territory into three areas, in addition to the city: the ager, which was the intensively cultivated field; the saltus, pasture, less intensive agriculture; and the silva, the forest for timber production and protection. This entire order was transformed, silviculture ended, and the cult of the forest began, which we no longer have. If we go to the countryside and ask where the forest is, they only know Little Red Riding Hood's, because what they have on their land are woods, bushes, etc. In the 19th century, maritime pine arrived to meet the needs of the railway that was being built. Later came resin, the timber industry, and cellulose. The worst part is that the country became a depopulated territory that, given its Mediterranean characteristics, burns with dry thunderstorms.

How should the territory be reordered?

The country is in complete disarray. On the one hand, an agricultural policy that fails to consider the Mediterranean mosaic, with agriculture, livestock, irrigation, and horticulture, the scrublands, the forests—a whole interconnected and orderly mosaic. In Mação, for example, that population traditionally lived off agriculture in the valleys and on the naves.

And in the mountains, there were scrublands grazed by goats and cattle. From the scrublands, honey, arbutus brandy, game, and aromatic plants were obtained. France, in scrubland areas, has a policy of supplying aromatic plants to the perfume industry. The issue today is to create a forest that produces timber but is integrated into agro-systems—a sustainable, versatile landscape—and to never repeat, as they already want, the planting of eucalyptus and pine forests. The populations are fed up with this and must be called to account. And there must be two fundamental ecological objectives: water circulation and the circulation of organic matter, using it to improve the soil's water retention capacity.

Does the excessive division of the territory (into half a million owners) make forest clearing difficult?

Clearing the forest is a myth. What is cleared from the forest, the organic matter? And what is done with the organic matter—is it thrown away, burned? In the past, this material was used to maintain good agricultural conditions and improve soil quality. At the same time, sufficient quantities were maintained in the forest to provide greater water retention capacity.

With exhaustive cleaning, we transformed the forest into a mirror and the water runs faster and is retained less in the forest, therefore the environment becomes drier.

If the forests were very clean, would they still burn?

They burned anyway, and their water retention capacity was no longer sufficient, creating a torrential system. Clearing must be understood as an agricultural operation. But this monocultural forest of coniferous and eucalyptus trees, cleared or not, is good for nothing but burning. That forest thrives on being kept from people. If there were more people there, it wouldn't burn like this.

What kind of wood do you use to defend a forest?

Pulpwood is a challenge because we now face fierce competition from the rest of the world. To be more profitable, eucalyptus forests could only be so in the Minho region, which receives over 800 ml of annual rainfall. Eucalyptus requires a lot of water, and Portugal can't compete with Brazil and Africa in terms of costs. Only if we transform the Minho region into a eucalyptus forest can we opt for quality woods from Mediterranean cultivation, such as all oaks, cork oaks, holm oaks, and carefully distributed pine forests.

They are not so profitable…

Oak, for example, accompanies a whole range of income such as cork, livestock, honey production, aromatic plants, and hunting.

Is there a limited view of what can be profitable in the forest?

It's very good for the pulp mills and very bad for the populations and for the country, which is devastated. The rural world was considered obsolete, like something that would disappear. Consider the absurdity of the policy of reducing agricultural assets. It contributed to the growth of suburbs, slums, and emigration. Did it bring anything better to the province? No. Just great business for the pulp mills and loggers.

Are people aware of this multiplicity of cultures?

Completely aware; it seems that politicians and technicians aren't. Because they've lost themselves in a forest of "numbers." Those familiar with the statistics say we're the third-largest country in Europe in terms of the absolute number of tractors, surpassed only by Germany and France. We're a country of tractors because subsidies support it, because importing all that machinery is beneficial. People were led to make investments, in the name of progress, that lacked any rationale.

If agricultural areas are increased, do we have farmers to take care of them?

We do. They're misguided, convinced they were peasants. There was a whole policy of discrediting the rural world based on the idea that it was inferior to the urban world. We depopulated the countryside, and all these people came to the city. Today, they face unemployment. They've forgotten that the people of the future will increasingly be people of both cultures: urban and rural. Today, 30% of people who practice economic agriculture in Europe are not farmers. They are people who live in the city, have their office there, and have a farm in the countryside where they go on weekends. Urban sprawl is increasing, and we can't live without agriculture, otherwise we'll starve.

What can the State do, since 84% of our forest is in the hands of landowners?

It can create integrated landscape management plans. Doesn't the State have complete control over urban expansion whenever it wants, and doesn't it create general urbanization plans? People shouldn't be able to plant whatever they want because they also can't build whatever they want. Building is done poorly because, sometimes, the State is asleep. There's a lack of general landscape management plans, which the current legislation doesn't address, despite having already established the Municipal Ecological Structure through Decree-Law 380/99. The Environmental Framework Law contains the concepts and principles for a landscape management plan; everything is written there, but they've never been regulated.

Does current legislation favor monocultures?

It's beneficial because the so-called "modernization" of agriculture is a scandal of incompetence. Agronomy universities in Portugal enjoyed a period of great intellectual vigour in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Now, they seem to have surrendered to economicism.

Should the State support with subsidies and tax benefits?

Absolutely. The owner is on tenterhooks, doing whatever will bring him money next year. Therefore, limits and standards must be established for systems, not cultures, but without taking away people's freedom to take risks.

And promote forestry associations, as in Spain, for example?

We've paved the way with the "urban communities" that are in the making—small metropolitan areas of parishes and villages—which I think is a good thing. We live in a Mediterranean culture, and development cannot be translated into economic units of high-volume production of two or three products. It's through versatility, the multiplicity of products, and the harmony of the landscape that the possibility of having a population settled in dignified conditions results.

These communities should be the ones to synthesize all interests. Because when we begin to highlight interests by sector, the systemic vision disappears, and the community's interests are transferred to companies that go beyond their borders, compromising the region's sustainability.

I don't advocate that there be an agricultural sector and a forestry sector; for me, they are exactly the same: agriculture complements forestry, and forestry complements agriculture.

The Socialist Party has once again discussed regionalization as the most effective way to organize the territory. Do you agree?

I long advocated for regionalization, which resulted in a document that the major political parties largely mocked. It divided the country into approximately 30 natural regions, areas of ordered landscape, which were already organized historically and geographically. These are the lands of Basto, the lands of Santa Maria, the lands of Sousa, the Bord'água do Tejo, etc. The country is this and nothing else. This regionalization could contribute to the implementation of landscape planning plans, with the democratic participation of the respective populations.

Did the Government wake up late to the calamity of the fires?

What could the government do? The evil has been going on for a long time. But I'm not sure it's going to take the right path now. They're already saying they want to reforest everything as it was. I'm horrified when I hear that. It means they want to return to pine and eucalyptus trees. Ask the fire victims who lost their homes if they want pine trees on their doorsteps again. They destroyed their vegetable gardens... Why are the houses burning? Because the pine trees are in the backyard.

Looking to the future, could fires be an opportunity to reorganize the territory?

The earthquake also allowed Manuel da Maia, at the behest of the Marquis of Pombal, to build downtown Lisbon. I don't wish for an earthquake, but don't miss this opportunity. The future of the country, its cultural identity, and its independence are at stake.

(Interview published in VISÃO 545, August 14, 2003)