SWBP: Deforestation

SWBP is Solutions for the World's Biggest Problems, a book I'm reading;
2007, edited by Bjorn Lomborg, Ch. 7: Deforestation, pp. 125-142, is written by Hank Folmer and G. Cornelis Van Kooten, with a shout out to Canada's Sustainable Forest Mgmt. Network.

Saruman said to "Rip them down!" (but he was actually a servant of Sauron)

Deforestation is the loss of forested area, to logging and agriculture (the human causes), or to natural means like fire and disease. Logging, contrary to popular belief, is not the major factor (it's only between 2-10%). Agricultural conversion is.

The chapter has a table that shows deforestation patterns across the planet between 1980-2005. Deforestation is mainly a tropical forest problem, between 23 degrees north and south of the equator. Boreal and temperate forests have actually increased in size. But overall, total forest area is decreasing, with Africa, Brazil, and Indonesia leading the way, although the rate of world deforestation is declining.

To quote Bjorn, "During the '90's there was a continuing steady loss of tropical forests: the decline was about 0.5 percent annually. The current rate of loss means that forests overall are not in any immediate danger, and, of course, regeneration is possible in time."

The authors say, "Even at the current rate of tropical deforestation, the world's tropical forests would continue to exist throughout the 21st century, and well into the 22nd century."

I would hope they would be with us always.

They note that tropical rainforest, of most concern to the international community, experiences relatively slower rates of deforestation than other tropical forest, and the highest rates of tropical deforestation occur in (moist or dry) upland forest.

Anyway, between 1990 to 2000 the world lost 9,397,000 hectares, and between 2000 and 2005 lost 7,317,000 hectares of forest, according to the UN's Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). This is similar to the large-scale temperate deforestation that has already occurred centuries ago in many regions of Europe and North America, for fuel, construction, and agriculture.

Doesn't this statistic make the people tree-sitting or chaining themselves to trees seem kind of silly? (But if you fell a tree, does it not sap?)

Did you know that wood matter is produced by plants from matter in the AIR, not the ground?

Okay, maybe I'm getting off topic. The chapter attempts to weigh the costs and benefits of deforestation, and propose solutions. It's not cut and dry, so to speak.

Forests have 1.timber and other products (production functions), 2.carbon sink and watershed utility (regulatory functions), and 3.the wildlife habitat/biodiversity function. Regulatory functions also include things like waste assimilation, soil conservation, etc. which do not have prices attached to them (easily, anyway). Non-market valuation is necessary, they propose.

All the (listed/described) factors that need to be taken into account are: value per hectare: clearfelling or sustainable selective logging (clearcutting does not usually occur, but if so, what percent is usable), "stumpage" prices, mgmt. costs, site conditions, productivity, and, especially, subsequent use of the land, such as artificially generated stands or managed plantations. Whether the land is used temporarily, and left fallow to revert back to forest, or used for permanent or semi-permanent agriculture, depends on ag prices, conversion subsidies, access roads, population pressure, and lack of tenure security, with variable significance. Soil-erosion/nutrient loss vs. use that provides crop-cover all year long is a big deal. The value of small-scale gathering of things like rattan, oils, fruits, nuts, and bushmeat, can be large at some times and places. There's eco-tourism, too. As many as possibly 16 million species go extinct in tropical forests every year. Illegal logging is widespread. The relation of income to deforestation has been studied, with the conclusion that it's complex and ambiguous. Factors differ in different places, and the definition of deforestation is variable in different studies, too. And CO2.

They use the term "forest regret" which is not explained. I have no idea what it means.

He lists 10 forms of policy failure in regards to forests (deforestation PLUS reduced welfare of society): 1. direct subsidies to fell forest, 2. indirect subsidies that encourage timber companies to harvest excessively, while failing to capture true costs, 3. creation and protection of an inefficient (log-wasting) forest-industry, 4. subsidies to cattle ranchers for foreign exchange, 5. tax credits, 6. exemption of ag income from taxation, 7. subsidized credit for agriculture, 8. rules on public land allocation that favor large land holders or require 'development' of land to demonstrate ownership, 9. access roads, 10. overpopulation and migration policies.

Of note: the value of forest soils for agriculture is often overstated, resulting in quick depletion from wrong crops. Peasants are encouraged to move to forest, so governments can avoid dealing with social unrest in cities. Politically powerless social groups cannot advocate for the protection of undervalued minor forest products. In the interests of economic growth and development, forests might not be seen as an essential resource, and may even be seen as an asset to be liquidated. Illegal logging is rampant in the absence of an honest and well-functioning court system, and corrupt politicians who use govt. property to benefit their supporters at the expense of the population, and, in general, a state that transparently forms policy, and has the legitimacy to make painful decisions.

There are some big remaining unanswered questions, like what is the potential cost of CO2, with the absence of forest? Deforestation may have a net benefit of around 22B USD (dollars) a year, but might also have the potential to damage global welfare by around 126B dollars, the chapter says. Because developing countries are given no, or inadequate, compensation for the CO2 released by their deforestation activities, CO2 does not enter into their decision calculus.

Global warming has a tipping point, so anti-deforestation efforts become increasingly more valuable/important. The chapter says, "It is clear that, in the absence of massive global transfers to tropical nations to encourage them to preserve forests (e.g. Kyoto's Clean Development Mechanism), deforestation will likely continue."

Market failure might be less of a factor than policy failures, in which govt. interventions encourage deforestation. While we can't assign numbers, the benefits of preventing deforestation outweigh the costs. The World Bank, and the international community, can play an important role in inducing changes in specific countries' harmful policies.