forest

[tony12345]

It is said that another acre of the world’s forests will be destroyed forever. Why is this happening? There are two reasons—land and wood. In many countries the trees have been cut down because the land is needed for animals or crops. In other parts of the world, the trees are cut down because their wood is wanted. This wood is used by the local people for firewood or it’s used for building. But many people don’t know that in most places the trees won’t be replaced. The soil is washed away by the rain or blown away by the wind. Soon nothing can be grown on it. The forest becomes a desert. Then more land will be needed, and more trees will be cut down.
When the forest is destroyed, it isn’t only the trees that are lost—the homes of millions of animals are in danger—fish, reptiles, birds, mammals, insects, and shellfish—as well as thousands of plants.
Who is to blame for this? The answer is simple: all of us. There are just too many people in the world. The world’s population is now six billion. Of course, it’s very easy to blame the local people. We don’t cut down trees. They do. But the products are bought by people like you and me—wooden houses, beds, tables, chairs, peper…Why are the forests being destroyed? Just look around. You are probably using them right now.

[include]

Shouldn't this be in deforestation?

[Robert Northup]

I worked for years in reforestation, setting up nurseries to produce seedlings and planting trees where tropical rainforests had been cleared by peasant squatters who practice slash-and-burn agriculture.

The peasants understand the land well and understand perfectly the long-term damage they are doing. It is not for lack of understanding or consciousness. It is the economic reality of having to feed a family, and the truly desperate act of slashing and burning rainforest to do it. They would much prefer to own their own land in the fertile valley, where they could sustainably farm for millenia to come. But most of that fertile flat land is used to grow cash crops for export, and that now, tragically, includes a lot of "biofuel" production.

And here's the part that may not sit well with many. The objective fact is that "sweat shops" saved the rainforest where I was working. Our reforestation efforts were failing badly. We couldn't get new trees planted at anywhere near the rate that old ones were being cut down. But suddenly, everything changed when "free trade" zones were established for foriegn companies to set up "sweat shops". Despite the awful working conditions and terribly low pay, the "sweat shops" offered an attractive alternative to slash and burn farming, and peasant squatters moved out of the rainforests and into the cities. This is hardly an ideal solution, but it does make one aware that there in more involved than simply making people aware of the harm caused by deforestation.

[Robert Northup]

A typical pattern in deforestation is for peasant squatters to come in first to slash and burn for a few years of crops. Wood cutters may or may not get there first, to get firewood or charcoal. However, wood cutters don't typically clear everything, but rather selectively harvest preferred trees. Where high value hardwoods grow, loggers may come around. But overall, it is the farmers who clear the most forest in the early phase. After a few years, when they have exhausted most of the remaining fertility, the farmers move on to slash and burn elsewhere. The ranchers move in to graze cattle on the now cleared land. Productivity (head of cattle per hectare) is low, and declines with continued grazing.

In contrast to slash and burn, highly sophisticated agroforestry systems have been practiced for centuries throughout the world. At first glance, some of these places look like natural rainforests. Looking closer, one realizes that every single tree, bush, and shrub on the site is a food, fiber, or cash crop. Such agroforestry systems can sustainably produce food, fiber, and income, without input of fertilizer or pesticide, even in steep, high rainfall conditions where agriculture carries high risk of erosion.

Why would a peasant squatter slash and burn rainforest, when all he needs to do is ask his grandfather how to establish an agroforestry system? Well, it is pretty labor intensive and it takes years to pay off. It is worth it if one owns the land to make this investment of effort. It is foolish to do so on someone else's land, particularly at the expense of short-term food and income needs.

So, the problem is not technological. Technology for sustainable productivity of forest land has long been in our hands. The problem is social, and land ownership is central to it. Furthermore, forest land is not the first choice for peasant farmers. Unfortunately, the more fertile land is unavailable to them, and is usually used to grow cash crops for export. Ironically, the slash and burn farmers of the rain forest provide food for the local market, while most of their nation's best land provides cash crops for export to wealthy nations.