Forests to fall for food and fuel

[Rog]

Demand for land to grow food and fuel crops is set to outstrip supply, leading to forest destruction, a report warns.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Forests to fall for food and fuel

[CRTreeDude]

In a way, this is not news. This has been our nature since who knows when. We perceive the forest as wasted space instead of being more productive.

I once saw some numbers here in Costa Rica. The amount of money made per year on an hectare.

With cattle, per year 157 dollars per hectare
With a plantation, 1500 dollars per year
With a forest itself, well managed, 5,000+

The issue is stripping the land is like emptying the bank account. You can live really well for a while - but when you run out of the money, you are going to be very very poor.

[debs]

If they added some carbon pricing then those forests would be even more valuable. Especially when you consider things like the medicines gained from rainforests, it's not just timber.

[CRTreeDude]

I think the later is considering the other uses of the forest, like medicines, etc.

There are many products too that live under the canopy, like coffee, cacao (where we get chocolate), etc. We tend to grow them in fields, but they are much, much better under shade.

If you add purified water, who knows how much value there is, and carbon rights.

[hoon]

Must be a value problem somewhere though, either in the value of the forests not being transmitted properly, or that value not being sent through to the ground level to the people that would otherwise earn a living from farming there.

[CRTreeDude]

The issue is that it only has value if you can sell it. It is very very easy to sell a cow, it is much more difficult to sell a medicinal plant (unless in high regard by the locals). Can you imagine someone calling up a pharmaceutical company and saying, "Hi, I have two bushels of stems from Hombre Grande, want to buy them?"

Much of the problem is that there currently no easy way to connect the people who own the forest with the end user of the products. Sometimes, in our efforts to improve the situation environmentally hurts the small farmer, etc.

Many times, the rules that are imposed for larger companies to keep from raping the land, cause the smaller farm owners to not even try to participate in the market.

Too much regulation can actually be worse than too little, especially if there isn't a consideration for the land owner. This is not a problem for us at all, but for many small farmers here in Costa Rica, it is a serious issue. And, if they feel the law is unfair, they just break it and take their chances.

just my dos colones (which are worth 1/5th as much as 2 cents if you didn't know...)

[CRTreeDude]

Shade grown organic coffee is a good example. It is more valuable on the market than the other stuff, considerably. But, you have to have 3 years to switch over. During that time, what is the subsistence coffee farmer going to live on?

And, it costs a lot to make the switch over - but, until you are certified, you won't receive any extra money, and you risk a complete crop loss because you have yet to improve the environment to the point that most pests are dealt with naturally, but you can't blast them with pesticides either.

Unless you find a buyer who will give you a good price for transition coffee, you probably can't make the leap.

[spadlet]

People also seem to have forgotten about woodland pasture (keeping livestock on the same land as you cultivate trees). Most of the livestock in the UK seems to have been kept on woodland pature in England centuries ago. Holly was also cultivated as a winter food source for livestock. It doesn't HAVE to be an either or situation. Trees can be grown alongside crop cultivation or livestock rearing. If the trees are pollarded then wood can be harvested from the trees and an energy source e.g. heating and people can be fed. In woodland pasture the livestock benefit from the shaelter provided by the trees and the trees benefit from the weed control that the livestock provides, so long and the system is kept in balance.

It takes some knowledge of the systems involved and careful design and management of the land to ensure that all aspects are catered for (and a few compromises) but it is possible.

[screener]

I was going to make the easy comment that one shortage causes another in a world of limited resources, and that we should be cutting back on consumption rather than trying to meet demand. But two things pointed out above go beyond that,, one that you can get much more from a hectare of forest than of food. Is that just a question of taking all the trees off at one shot, or is that sustainable annual production in Costa Rica? and two,, small farmers aren't "trying to meet demand, they are trying to survive.

Where is ownership of the forest?

[CRTreeDude]

Originally Posted by screener

I was going to make the easy comment that one shortage causes another in a world of limited resources, and that we should be cutting back on consumption rather than trying to meet demand. But two things pointed out above go beyond that,, one that you can get much more from a hectare of forest than of food. Is that just a question of taking all the trees off at one shot, or is that sustainable annual production in Costa Rica? and two,, small farmers aren't "trying to meet demand, they are trying to survive.

Where is ownership of the forest?

A plantation is the concept of raising trees as a crop. The last example is the idea of a mixed aged, full canopy forest, utilizing sustainably all the products of the forest, but never damaging the forest. This is because the highest value products of the forest only come with many, many years.

Perhaps an example. Lets say you grow a tree in a plantation. You will get a good return if you did it correct. BUT, if you have a huge tree, lets say 2 feet in diameter, that falls over and you harvest it, the value of those large slabs of wood are much, much more, especially in a world where most lumber is small. As well, the rarest of woods take a long time to grow, and generally won't grow in a plantation. Usually most plantation wood is fast growing, pioneer trees.

Who owns the forest? Logically, the forest. At least that is our plan. The forest itself must be considered the prime mover for designs so that it is not exploited. I think this way about it. When I hire a person, give them a good working environment with benefits and a good salary, I am not exploiting them, because they are better off for working for me. The same can be with the forest. The forest itself can provide the resources necessary to protect itself and improve itself. We humans can function as stewards for the forest instead of rapers. If the end result of my actions leaves the forest better off - then no harm done. The issue arises when there are appropriate safeguards to prevent someone from exploiting the forest for short term gain.