[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

TH: Natural vs man-made forests



 Post-To: Tree-House@Majordomo.Flora.Com (Community Forestry) ----------
 -------
 To Tree-House -

 It's another long posting, but very well written.  This one comes
 from the 'Mountain Forum' mailing list out of Sri Lanka, where it
 was forwarded to the FOREST mailing list out of Finland, and here
 it is being forwarded again to Tree-House ...

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
 From: owner-mtn-forum
 Date: DD June YYYY 09:39
 To: mtn-forum
 Subject: Natural vs man made forests
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
 On the identity of forests

Ranil Senanayake

Biodiversity is what gives a forest its identity.  In this context, a forest
must also be appreciated as a constantly changing, growing entity.  From the
small bushes of an area after a fire to the tall growth fifty years later,
the
species and architecture goes through many changes, all expressions of the
growing, maturing forest.

The argument as to whether a forest that has been influenced by humans
should
be
considered natural or not,  is spurious at best.  It is a valueless
observation
of the historical fact that humanity has, over the generations lived in
almost
every part of this globe.  It cannot serve as a consideration to shape or
influence policy, unless its biological and ecological identity is taken as
a
primary indicator.  Forests,  like most other ecosystems on this planet
posses
vagility and move in space and time. The movement of a forest is slow when
measured by time scales relevant to a human generation, but it is fast when
measured by time scales relevant to geological processes.  Forests have even
existed in such places as the Sahara, although they are inhospitable to
forests
today, these forests have moved to other places over time.  Even at more
modest
time scales forests tend to move with impressive rapidity.  The movement of
the
dry, deciduous forests of Sri Lanka into land that was under intensive
cultivation took a few hundred years.  The progression of abandoned farmland
in
the Eastern US to mature woodland took even less.  This brings up the
question,
'is there such a thing as a natural forest'? The short answer is yes. A
natural
forest is the response of the local complex of trees and associated
organisms
to
local geologic and climatic conditions.  Disturbance, be it volcanoes,
hurricanes or human beings may destroy the forest, but if it manages to re
establish itself it is still a natural forest.  The delicate and vexing
question
is when does a forest stop being natural ? One clear criterion  is 'when it
begins to contain exotics as a constituent of its vegetation'.  Exotics or
species that have originated in regions or countries outside the forest in
question are usually a product of human activity, sometimes intentional,
sometimes not.  Another which is more difficult to quantify is when the
original
patterns of species and ecosystems are changed through human intervention so
that the patterns and diversity of the species are changed.  Thus a
monoculture
of rubber in the Amazon basin or a monoculture of oil palm in the Congo may
be
comprised of trees that were once natural components of the original forest
but
cannot be classed as natural forests..  These may be tree dominated
ecosystems
that look like a forest but they are in no way natural.  As such systems are
a
product of human activity they can be differentiated from natural ecosystems
and
are termed anthropogenic systems

The identity of a natural forest ecosystem can therefore be established.  It
has
a certain state of complexity, biodiversity, soil quality, stability,
ecological
identity etc.  The most mature or least disturbed providing the measure of
best
state.  The species and patterns of ecosystems within a given natural forest
will and does change over time, but all such changes involve species that
were
original to the area, in patterns that follow the natural seral succession
of
that forest.  Here, seral succession refers to the patterns of change that
occur
if a patch of forest is cleared and left to natural regeneration processes.
Often a progression from grassland, to scrubland to early forest to mature
forest is seen.

The identity of an anthropogenic forest, while being defined by exotics and
deviation from natural patterns, is a complex but essential question;
especially
in the light of the need to manage for sustainable production and for value
adding in agriculture.  An anthropogenic forest can range from the modified,
natural forests of the Kayapo of Brazil which is comprised of a diverse mix
of
natural species to the Pinus monocultures of Sri Lanka which is totally
comprised of a exotic species from the Caribbean region.  However,
monoculture
plantations from the Pinus in Scotland to Teak in Costa Rica have been
developed
and funded as forestry.  Therefore it is crucial to address the relative
values
of each type of anthropogenic forest using a scale that has applicability in
every instance.  Such an exercise can help rationalize investment in the
forestry sector which at present often works at odds with national or
international policies.  It can also help international investment be
applied
more effectively in the achievement of national and international goals.

The values that can be ascribed to a forest are manifold and range from
social,
to ecological to economic.  These values have been long discussed on
national
and international fora and are being summarized by the international
convention
processes and in intergovernmental discussions.  Some examples are: The
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the Intergovernmental Panel on
Forests
(IPF) or the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD).

One of the primary values that have been ascribed to a forest is the value
of
extractive products such a timber, medicines, resins, fruits, nuts etc.
Although timber has been the highest profile product, emerging markets for
and
values of the other wide array of products is now recognized as an area of
tremendous future growth. Yet, more important in many ways are the forest
services in terms of ecosystem output which still needs to be addressed.

The report on Biodiversity by the UNEP to the CSD has highlighted the
massive
problem inherent in the current discussions on forests.  by pointing out
that
"Forests can only be sustained if you sustain the richness of forest
ecosystems." this  demonstrates the need to have forests as an issue managed
by
a multi-agency consortium rather that placing it under a single institution.

It
is a fact that none of the so called 'forestry' practices has been able to
sustain the richness of natural forest ecosystems, yet there are innumerable
claims that 'sustainable forestry' is being practiced.  Now that the task
manager for Biodiversity has provided the CSD with a tool for evaluation,
"the
richness of forest ecosystems",  it should be utilized in the deliberations
that
follow.

The discussions on the sustainable management of  forests still lack clear
definitions creating a sense of confusion in the identification of goals.
 For
instance, the inability to distinguish between plantations and forests have
allowed processes that have led to a massive reduction of forest
biodiversty.
These definitions  need to be clarified and harmonized in statements
transmitted from the COP to the IPF or the CSD.  As forests are biological
entities, any criteria or indicator chosen to represent biodiversty status
must
be rooted in biological variables.  The current practices of assessing
physical
cover alone will not adequately indicate forest quality and trends.  In this
context, socio-cultural values should also be incorporated into the setting
of
criteria and indicators.  Further, for every acre of forest that stands
today,
hundreds of acres of forest have been lost in the surrounding countryside.
Yet
there has been no mention of the need for rehabilitation and recovery of the
biodiversity status of such degraded lands.  If these fundamental issues are
not
addressed,  the loss of biodiversity in these critical ecosystems cannot be
contained.

 Ranil Senanayake
 President
 Earthkind
 Nuwara Eliya
 Sri Lanka.
 Fax:94-1-692007
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------