I am thinking about the consequences of no-forestation policies, called for by a range of environmental groups such as Greenpeace and TFT, and what this could mean for development in forested regions? If forest areas of the world (Canada, Russia, Brazil, DRC, PNG etc.) are not allowed through international pressure to cut down their forests, and especially so in poorer regions in the tropics, how can development take place? Are there examples of good development, healthy, well fed, happy people in forest areas where no deforestation has ever taken place? I cannot think of any such examples. If these examples do not exist, then current calls for no-deforestation sound rather hollow in terms of commitment to other sustainability goals, such as alleviating poverty, reducing hunger, providing education and giving people equitable treatment. The Sustainable Development Goal's motto of leaving no one behind would become problematic if some were forced behind. What am I missing ?
This should be discussed in the angle of sustainability and governance of commons. Forests provide ecosystem services that are essential for quality of livelihoods of communities in many regions. If forests are considered as pure economic commodities then it is seen as income, energy, or employment generating activity. Forests are ecosystems that support many services that are vital to sustainability of a region, including livelihoods. Local and indigenous people depend on it for survival. Much of recent deforestation is driven by pressures from urban development, international demand for forest products, mining, and biofuels and many other complex factors. While it is attractive to keep continuing destroy these commons to maintain economic growth, the loss of services is a high cost that is not accounted in such actions. One example of a well-guided forest management is Costa Rica. With establishment of natural reserves, much of the country has forest areas that are enjoyed by local communities, endangered wildlife, but has also has attracted ecotourism revenues. This is in contrast to its neighbor Honduras that has allowed deforestation that has resulted in increased urban/crop land with degraded landscapes, high erosion, loss of wildlife, and impacts on local communities that have deleterious economic impacts. Such common pool resources can result in a tragedy if there is no careful management and governance. It is important for countries to look at this with insights from common pool literature to remember resources that we have lost and those that are vulnerable (like forests). One example is the loss of large areas of tropical forests to Palm Oil Plantations. These plantations in the name of economic development have only displaced local communities and has concentrated wealth to large corporations supported by corrupt politicians. Promoting forests as means to economic growth misses considering ecological and social impacts and often leads to irreversible loss of these vital resources and deviates from the essential goal of Sustainable Development Goals to support economic, social, and ecological vitality of regions.
This should be discussed in the angle of sustainability and governance of commons. Forests provide ecosystem services that are essential for quality of livelihoods of communities in many regions. If forests are considered as pure economic commodities then it is seen as income, energy, or employment generating activity. Forests are ecosystems that support many services that are vital to sustainability of a region, including livelihoods. Local and indigenous people depend on it for survival. Much of recent deforestation is driven by pressures from urban development, international demand for forest products, mining, and biofuels and many other complex factors. While it is attractive to keep continuing destroy these commons to maintain economic growth, the loss of services is a high cost that is not accounted in such actions. One example of a well-guided forest management is Costa Rica. With establishment of natural reserves, much of the country has forest areas that are enjoyed by local communities, endangered wildlife, but has also has attracted ecotourism revenues. This is in contrast to its neighbor Honduras that has allowed deforestation that has resulted in increased urban/crop land with degraded landscapes, high erosion, loss of wildlife, and impacts on local communities that have deleterious economic impacts. Such common pool resources can result in a tragedy if there is no careful management and governance. It is important for countries to look at this with insights from common pool literature to remember resources that we have lost and those that are vulnerable (like forests). One example is the loss of large areas of tropical forests to Palm Oil Plantations. These plantations in the name of economic development have only displaced local communities and has concentrated wealth to large corporations supported by corrupt politicians. Promoting forests as means to economic growth misses considering ecological and social impacts and often leads to irreversible loss of these vital resources and deviates from the essential goal of Sustainable Development Goals to support economic, social, and ecological vitality of regions.
Economic development is no longer strongly tied to agriculture or forestry or livestock production. Name a country today pulling itself into prosperity using primarily these 19th Century economies. Even in countries extracting massive amounts from these activities (e.g. Brazil), they account for a small fraction of GDP. The economies of the future will be (for better of worse) urban and service-directed. Cutting forests will contribute little to this, and may even be detrimental. You ask to name a wealthy country that did not cut its forests. I ask you to name one that does not regret it.
Good discussion on a question close my heart and mind since I graduated in professional forestry. Is blanket ban on extraction of forest resources will improve the ecology and environment or sustainable development in this 6 billion population ( may be more). Does this not hypocrisy in name of aborignals or tribals living in these areas, who are human beings and require all basic amenities form food, health and education in their hamlets or fringe areas of forests. I think the term mention is wrong "no deforestation" rather it be no harvesting or cutting of trees in forests. That sound good as its has control and regulated mechanism with scientific management of forests for utilsation as well as conservation, wildlife habitat, ecosystem services etc. Deforestation itself negative a it advocate unregulated and unscientific use of forest resources leading to loss of forest areas.
I agree that to have sustainable goals target every resources on earth needed to be utilised in a rational manner whether, energy, natural resources or agricultural, industries etc. Forests are one of the biggest natural resource and if we are not ultilising it in scientific manner as sustainable management approach it will be dead stuff even for future generation. Partial human interventions are needed to regulate our forests.
How "the few" is being defined here is problematic to me and is an expression of how subjective consciousness of scientific labor and objective use of natural resources have been commodified in the modern society as a function of insatiable needs of "the real few" -- the top 1%. So the big question is development for whom? And what is development? Statistically speaking, while the world produces ever-greater amounts of resources, half of the world's population to go bed hungry. The production machines generally located in urban cores require constant accumulation of resources from nature only for producing profits for few oligarchic firms in the world. This process of accumulation never follows the logic of regenerative capacity of nature and share of growth. Thus, the economic growth (development) is a political fantasy of the super-rich that is actualized through the unification of politics and corporations/businesses. The role of modern science to a great extent is to fulfill the functions of the existing mode of continuous destruction of nature and disadvantaged communities. Research proposal for funding is usually, but not necessarily, accepted not to tackle how carrying capacity of nature is undermined, but to create profit-making opportunities for the few. The social process by which we become conscious about what's real about nature vs society is a function of how the whole process takes away our subjectivity and reflexive understanding of reality. Therefore, any discussion focused on natural resources conservation vs development without social and economic inequality and ecological sustainability is a false scientific category that can only promote modern institutional goals of profit-making for the few.
There are different views on the subject as per their perception or ideology. But the scientific management of forest is needed even you go by conservation approach of welfare of aboriginals or tribals living in those forest areas. Therefore complete ban on felling or declaring reserved forests is not a solution. In any development is done its fruits goes to all society as per their share but if we say everybody get equal share will not possible in diverse socio economic and political system.
If the modern science came to a conclusion with sufficient consensus that the existing mode of global forest use is sustainable, there would have been no radical ban on forest. I am not sure about the complete ban but it is clearly evident that a transformation in the ongoing system of forest use is a must need approach. Without measures such as ban, I only see the scope of continuation of the existing mode of forest use which is unanimously unsustainable. If this is agreed, the so-called scientific management of forestry--that is not focused on its regenerative capacity and social costs-- must not be defined as a science but an ideological fantasy which is promoted through the use of modern institutions.
- Badges
- Science topic