Conservation

Forests are one of the most important natural resources that have been gifted to mankind for their sustained existence on earth. Without question, they provide us with huge amounts of tangible and intangible benefits, without which indeed, all life, less to say human life, would fall under the risk of extinction. Hence, it is vital for us to realize this importance of forest cover, conserve them, and ultimately work towards a sustainable way to maintain our forests and meet our needs at the same time.

In this paper, I have focused initially on the barbaric behavior of us human beings towards forests, and how they have been and are still being massacred around the globe to meet our ever-increasing and limitless wants and needs. I have also focused on why some of our conservation strategies and efforts are not working out the way they were supposed to be. In doing so, I have tried to prove that countries like Bangladesh, who are still striving to develop should focus on forest conservation.

My hypothesis is that Bangladesh has the capability to both conserve its forest resources and grow economically at the same time, and create means for poverty elevation by conserving. In the second portion I have focused on a more comprehensive way to sustainable forest conservation, backing up my statements by expert opinions and case studies, and at the end a bit of focus was put on biodiversity importance and its conservation practices and strategies. I have also mentioned some economic, social and policy instruments that can be implemented in order to conserve forests better.

I have used some primary data, from specific experts on forests, but my main data sources are secondary sources, mainly the Internet and books. The full list of references is given in the work-cited portion at the end of the paper. From the very beginning of civilization, human beings have depended heavily on forests for their survival. Cradles of civilization, places of beauty, sources of spiritual inspiration, and treasure houses of natural riches, forests are closely linked with the physical, economic, and spiritual well being of people.

Man has depended on forests for lumber and furniture, medicine and cosmetics, firewood and food, drinking water and fresh air, respite and recreation. Despite their central role in the well being of people, forests are threatened by human actions on a scale and pace far beyond nature’s capacity to adapt. Forests are being destroyed around the globe at a scale, which has already passed the “alarming” stage. Reasons such as land shortage, urbanization, agriculture, excessive and unsustainable timber extraction have led to cutting down of miles upon miles of pristine forest land.

In 2002 alone, 10,000 square miles in Brazil’s Amazon region were deforested due to logging, ranching, farming, and infrastructure development. In Africa’s Congo Basin, roads built into legally protected areas like national parks by illegal loggers provided access for bush meat poachers and contributed to an increase in forest fires. Although recently, the importance of forests has been realized to a degree, enough importance has not yet been put into the conservation sector so as to actually retain the remaining percentage of forest cover the world has left.

In this paper I have discussed just how much importance needs to be put on conservation of forests, why this needs to be done, how it can be done in a systematic, sustainable way, and what the aftermaths of not doing so may be.

Definitions

For clarification purposes, a full list of definitions are given below so that the terms discussed in this paper are clear and not confused with other related terms.

Forest

The word “forests” originated from the Greek word “foris”, which means “out of doors”. Generally a large uncultivated area of land bearing trees and undergrowth is termed as a forest.

Wild animals are also associated with this term, which includes their interaction with the trees and undergrowth and their abiotic surroundings (air, soil etc. ). L. S Davis defined forests as a set of land parcels, which has or could have tree vegetation.

Conservation and preservation

These two terms are often confused with one another, but they refer to two slightly different concepts. Preservation of anything is basically keeping it in such manner that it cannot or should not be touched or used.

For instance, if a forest is being preserved it means that it is to be kept untouched and nothing is to be extracted from it. It is to be left to its own accord. On the other hand, conservation implies more towards a sustained use, or use in a sustainable fashion. As in the example given above, if a forest is declared as conserved, it means that resources may be extracted in a systematic and accounted way, so as not to compromise the forests ability to replenish itself in terms of resources, and so that it may continue its intangible functions properly.

Sustainability and sustainable development

The term refers to the existence and maintenance of a system, on its own accord, over a period of time, or that a system is able to stand and function by itself for a certain duration. This term then leads on to sustainable development, which the latest of concepts in development of a nation and its entities. Sustainable development means the development targeted at making resources available both useful yet sustained, so as no to compromise it for future generations.

Forest management

The society of American Foresters (1958) defined forest management as “the application of business methods and technical forestry principles to the operation of forestry property.”. Generally put, forest management is the maintenance of forests in such a way that it is protected and conserved at the same time. In other words it the system by which we make sure that we extract resources from the forest in a sustained way (sustainable yields) and so that the forest does not lose its credibility. Forests come in various types and properties.

They range from tropical evergreen rain forests along the equator of the earth, to temperate and boreal forests in northern America and Russia. The world’s tropical forests, which circle the globe, are interestingly diverse. Ranging from the steamy jungles of the rain forests to the dry forests and savannas, they provide habitat for millions of species of plants and animals. Once covering some 15. 3 billion acres (6. 2 billion ha), these tropical forests have been reduced through cutting and clearing by 210 million acres (85 million ha) between 1985 and 1990. This is in fact the story in most parts of the world.

Bangladesh for instance is losing its natural forestland at an alarming rate of 3. 3% a year, which is the third highest rate in the world after Jamaica and Haiti. (Miller, 641). Although plantations have gone up in percentage during the last few years, especially strip plantations, which are a recent phenomenon in Bangladesh, especially in Dhaka, natural forests are still on the decrease. This can be seen in the table below, as of the year 2000, which also includes comparisons to Asia and the world as a whole. Yet probably the saddest story to be told is that of the world’s tropical forests.

Although tropical rainforests cover less than six percent of the earth’s land surface, they are extraordinarily endowed with millions of animal species and represent seventy-five million years of evolutionary stability. Covering a land area approximately the size of the United States, tropical forests are being rapidly degraded, the equivalent of the combined areas of Ohio and Indiana each year. According to some experts, almost half the world’s tropical forests have already been wiped of the face of the earth for good. If we look at the table given below, we can get an estimate of what the situation really is at present.

This is alarming in more than just environmental perspectives. Yet, when we look into conservation possibilities, all sides, sectors, direct and indirect reasons need to be assessed before coming to any kind of decision. Since this paper is about the conservation needs of forests, all such sectors and sides have been touched in the following sections. Before the dawn of agriculture approximately 10,000 years ago, forests and open woodland covered about 15. 3 billion acres (6. 2 billion ha) of the globe. Over the centuries, however, about one-third of these natural forests have been destroyed.

According to a 1982 study by FAO, about 27. 9 million acres (11. million ha) of tropical forests are cut each year-an area about the size of the States of Ohio or Virginia. Between 1985 and 1990, an estimated 210 million acres (85 million ha) of tropical forests were cut or cleared. In India, Malaysia, and the Philippines, the best commercial forests are gone, and cutting is increasing in South America.

Several factors are responsible for deforestation: clearing for agriculture, fuel woodcutting, and harvesting of wood products. By far the most important of these is clearing for agriculture. In the Tropics, the age-old practice of shifting, sometimes called “slash-and-burn,” agriculture has been used for centuries.

In this primitive system, local people cut a small patch of forest to make way for subsistence farming. After a few years, soil fertility declines and people move on, usually to cut another patch of trees and begin another garden. In the abandoned plot, the degraded soil at first supports only weeds and shrubby trees.

Later, soil fertility and trees return, but that may take decades. As population pressure increases, the fallow (rest) period between cycles of gardening is shortened, agricultural yields decrease, and the forest region is further degraded to small trees, brush, or eroded savanna. Conversion to sedentary agriculture is an even greater threat to tropical forests.

Vast areas that once supported tropical forests are now permanently occupied by subsistence farmers and ranchers and by commercial farmers who produce sugar, cocoa, palm oil, and other products. In many tropical countries there is a critical shortage of firewood. For millions of rural poor, survival depends on finding enough wood to cook the evening meal. Every year more of the forest is destroyed, and the distance from home to the forest increases. Not only do people suffer by having to spend much of their time in the search for wood, but so does the land. Damage is greatest in dry tropical forests where firewood cutting converts forests to savannas and grasslands.

The global demand for tropical hardwoods, an $8-billion-a-year industry, also contributes to forest loss. Tropical forests are usually selectively logged rather than clear-cut. Selective logging leaves the forest cover intact but usually reduces its commercial value because the biggest and best trees are removed.

Selective logging also damages remaining trees and soil, increases the likelihood of fire, and degrades the habitat for wildlife species that require large, old trees-the ones usually cut. In addition, logging roads open up the forests to shifting cultivation and permanent settlement. In the past, logging was done primarily by primitive means-trees were cut with axes and logs were moved with animals such as oxen.

Today the use of modern machinery–chain saws, tractors, and trucks -makes logging easier, faster, and potentially more destructive. In Bangladesh, it is more or less the same picture. Being a developing country which is yet striving to stand on its own feet, it is still extracting its only, and few available resources such as forests for the sake of rapid economic growth. Further more, the lack of land space is forcing settlers to encroach upon forest land, in order to use it for agriculture and fisheries purposes. The poor are using forests as means for survival, and there is little the administration (local governments and forest department) can do to stop illegal encroachment in forests.

Yet even so, as I have stated in my hypothesis, it is possible for a country like Bangladesh to conserve forests and elevate poverty at the same time, and the following sections will consist of exactly how this may be achieved. In his article “Conservation Strategy: Rationale and a Framework”, Dr. Mizanur Rahman Khan says, “…there is a difference in perspective regarding what to conserve and how to conserve.

One group, often dubbed as ‘radical greens’, argue that the global environmental problems have already reached a crisis proportion and require a ‘fire fighting’ strategy. On the other side of the fence, there are ‘free-market’ environmentalists who argue that environmental laws and regulations impose unfair burdens on the economy and on individuals. ” A balance between the two is what Dr.

M Khan thinks is required, and he goes on to say that the protection of the environment is an essential part of development and that this is globally recognized. In this light, when we look at the conservation efforts being made to conserve the forests of Bangladesh, it is almost immediately clear that most of the above stated conditions are not being applied. Problems with definitions of protected areas still remain, and hence loop holes give people the chance to illegally encroach upon the land. So the question is now, what is there to be done? What steps should Bangladesh authorities take to prevent such anomalies and protect the forests we have?

A simple solution is given by Dr.Abdur Rob Khan, a well known economist and research director at Bangladesh Institute of International and Strategic Studies, when he was asked as to what Bangladesh can do. Dr Rob says: “Indeed Bangladesh does have the capability to both conserve and elevate poverty at the same time. To do that, the first and most obvious step is to introduce participatory forestry. The stakeholders have to be identified and given proper priority in terms of their needs and requirements. Second, we have far too less forest cover, only about 6-7% of the total land area right now. This has to be doubled. This can be done by introducing social forestry, homestead forestry and road side forestry.

Once these two steps have been undertaken, we can then head on towards poverty elevation, because both these steps will not only help the nation as a whole, but also see to the needs of the local people in and around forests. Other wise, conservation may face an early death, and we may as well lose our forests. ” The points upheld by Dr. Abdur Rob are to great degrees true. Indeed, the only way to ensure the survival of a resource and the people associated with it is to introduce those people into its management and care. Below I have stated some of the ways to o this and also some other steps towards conserving forests.

Participatory forestry

To involve the local people, and to pick out the stake holders, the initial thing that needs to be done is to get to know the social aspects of the people involved.

This process is called “Focus Group Discussions” Basically; authority people have to go to the locality and get to know the social life styles of the local people. This is done by conducting such discussions with selected people from the locality. A questionnaire is made which involves everything ranging from average yearly income to what festivals they have and their matrimonial practices. Once this can be done, stake holders can be identified and selected out. They are then involved in to the management regimes, including decision making privileges to resource extraction etc. In depth discussions are then held with the selected people and local leaders to figure out how benefits are to be shared. Both tangible and intangible benefits from the forest are then held up to the people.

Participatory forestry can be seen in practice in the strip plantations in and around Dhaka along side roads and rail lines. These are basically community based resource management schemes, from which involved people receive benefits in future for their present services, hence encouraging them to conserve the site.

Ancient Forestry Practices

In ancient Persia (now Iran), forest protection and nature conservation laws were in effect as early as 1,700 B. C. Two thousand years ago the Chinese practiced what they called “four sides” forestry-trees were planted on house side, village side, road side, and water side. More than 1,000 years ago, Javanese maharajahs brought in teak and began to cultivate it. In the African Tropics, agro forestry (growing of food crops n association with trees) has been practiced for hundreds of years.

Relatively little is known about tropical forestry before the mid 1800’s in most places. At that time, the European colonial empires notably the Dutch, English, and Spanish-brought modern forest management practices to Indonesia, India, Africa, and the Caribbean. Centers for forestry and forestry research were established, and more careful records were kept. (J. Louise).

Sustainable Forestry

Modern forestry has its basis in 18th-century Germany. Like the Chinese and the Mayan forest practices, German forestry is essentially agricultural. Trees are managed as a crop. Two concepts are important: renewability and sustainability.

Renewability means that trees can be replanted and seeded and harvested over and over again on the same tract of land in what are known as crop “rotations. ” Sustainability means that forest harvest can be sustained over the long term. How far into the future were foresters expected to plan? As long as there were vast acres of virgin (original) forests remaining, this question was somewhat academic.

Today, however, sustainability is a vital issue in forestry. Most of the world’s virgin forests are gone, and people must rely more and more on second- growth or managed forests. Perhaps we now face, as never before, the limits to long-term productivity. In the German forest model, forestry is viewed as a continual process of harvest and regeneration.

Harvest of wood products is a goal, but a forester’s principal tasks are to assure long-term productivity. That is achieved by cutting the older, mature, and slow-growing timber to make way for a new crop of young, fast-growing trees.

Harvest Regeneration Method

Three examples of timber harvest-regeneration methods (silvicultural systems) illustrate how foresters manage stands to produce timber on a sustained basis.

• SELECTION

Individual trees or small groups of trees are harvested as they become mature. Numerous small openings in the forest are created in which saplings or new seedlings can grow. The resulting forest has a continuous forest canopy and trees of all ages.

Such systems favor slow-growing species that are shade tolerant.

• CLEAR CUTTING

In clear cutting, an entire stand of trees is removed in one operation. From the forester’s point of view, clear cutting is the easiest way to manage a forest-and the most economical. Regeneration may come from sprouts on stumps, from seedlings that survive the logging operation, or from seeds that germinate after the harvest.

If natural regeneration is delayed longer than desired, the area is planted or seeded. Clear cutting systems are often used to manage fast-growing species that require a lot of light. Resulting stands are even aged because all the trees in an area are cut-and regenerated-at the same time.

Clear cutting has become controversial in recent years because it has the potential to damage watersheds and because it tends to eliminate species of wildlife dependent on old growth trees. If clear cuts are kept small and the cutting interval is long enough, however, biological diversity may not be impaired.

• SHELTERWOOD

In Shelterwood systems, the forest canopy is removed over a period of years, usually in two cuttings. After the first harvest, natural regeneration begins in the understory. By the time the second harvest is made, enough young trees have grown to assure adequate regeneration. Shelterwood systems favor species that are intermediate in tolerance to shade. Such systems are difficult to use successfully and are the least used of the three silvicultural methods described.

Analysis of Findings

It seems that the obvious conclusion would be, as Dr. Rob said, that social forestry is the best option available to us at present. This will not only enable Bangladesh to conserve its few remaining forests, but also use those forests efficiently as a tool to poverty elevation. In fact this is not the first time research on Bangladesh forests has led to such conclusions. Many experts have done similar such research and have come to find this sort of forestry as efficient means of conservation. Bangladesh yet faces many hard steps to the stage we call developed. Even now, it faces harden blockades when the question of conservation arises.

Poverty, high population, land shortage, illegal encroachment, political disfucntionings and sheer ignorance of duty are just some of the barricades that hold us back from preserving the few resources we have left in this once lushly rich country. It not as though we are not conserving. Indeed, plantations have come up across the country in what seems hopeful ways. It seems that there is yet hope for us and our forests. Shatchari, Modhupur, Lawachara, Medakochapia are some bright names in our success books concerning plantation forestry. Yet I raise the question to the jury, is this what we really want for us? Do we really want to see some time in the future that the country is devoid of its natural forests and has only plantations left?

Plantations, Strip plantations, mono-cultures, botanical gardens are very good in terms of forest cover, but if we lose all our natural forests, what would happen to all the hundreds of species of animals and birds that we have? We would lose them forever. Will it be possible for us to conserve them to? The case stands for the rest of the world as well. Tropical forests are being deforested at a football field size a day. Very soon, perhaps sooner than we think, we will lose what we have left to the greed of a few ignorant people. Will it not shame us to think that we human beings will be responsible of wiping out all other species just for the sake of our comfort? Is this not a question of ethics?

It remains to be seen as to how Bangladesh, less to say the rest of the world acts to save its forests, yet perhaps it is not wise to just sit and wait for some miracle to happen. It is time we put on our thinking caps and stepped out into the field, and tried our best to see to that we leave the few natural pristine forests remaining at peace with themselves.

References

1. Mastrantonio J. Louise. “CONSERVATION OF FORESTS”. Online journal. nd. 18th December 2006. http://www. fs. fed. us/global/lzone/student/tropical. htm
2. Forests of the World. “Forestry Overview”. Online article. nd. 19th December 2006. http://www. worldwildlife. org/forests/
3. Davis, L.S 1966. “Forest Management”. 1st edition. pp 790.
4. Earth Trends. “Forest Conservation”. Online Journal. nd. 19th December 2006. http://earthtrends. wri. org/text/biodiversity-protected/country-profiles. html Forest Conservation. “Enterprise for the Americas in Action”. Online article. nd. 19th December 2006. http://www. earthvoice. org/animal. habitat/forest. conservation. htm
5. Khan, Mizanur Rahman. “Conservation Strategy: Rationale and a Framework”. Conservation and Sustainable Development.
6. Interview : Dr. Abdur Rob Khan. Research Director at Bangladesh Institute of International and Strategic Studies, Dhaka, Bangladesh. 20th December 2006.

The construction industry and its activities have an important role to play in socioeconomic development and quality of life. Construction activity accounts for more than 50% of the national outlays. Building Construction costs registered an increase in rates year after year at scales much faster than inflation. It is seen that in view of the increase in cost for basic input materials like steel, cement brick timber and other materials as well as the cost of construction labour, buildings cost increase at around 20% to 30% annually even when inflation is in single digit.

Even though income levels of people are by and large brought in line with the levels of inflation through inflation indexed rise in salaries, year after year, housing is moving beyond the reach of the majority of the people. The reducing housing size for various categories in consecutive years in respect of the plinth areas, nature of specifications even with increased income levels would indicate the rapid increase in cost of construction.

The urban population growth has increased to more than 30%, and has made the need for adequate housing for low income people a very important concern for the government. However, the rush to respond to these needs seems to result in a low quality housing that does not adequately match the needs of these people. In countries where construction contributed 3-5% to GDP, an implication for development policy was that unless the construction industry grew faster than the economy as a whole it might constrain national development (Han and Ofori, 2001).

The construction industry is a main contributor to the national economy, therefore the more developed the industry is the more the contribution to the economy. Similarly, a developing economy leads to more construction projects and purchasing ower means affordable projects. The interlink relation between the construction industry and the economy makes it clear that development can not occur without the other, although a growing construction industry does not necessarily mean a developing industry nor economy.

In fact, the increase in construction prices could cause an artificial indication of the contribution of the construction industry to the GDP and economy. Furthermore the increase in construction costs always occurs faster than the increase in the GDP/capita. Approximate costs generally include mechanical and electrical installations, but exclude furniture, loose or special quipment, and external works. They also exclude fees for professional services and permission fees. The costs shown are appropriate to local specifications and standards.

This should be borne in mind when attempting comparisons with similarly described building types in other countries. One of the main barriers to sustainability and sustainable construction will be affordability. The construction industry in developing countries cannot afford to make any dramatic changes but has to start improving the existing technology and local resources it has. In less than two decades, the construction costs have increased by a considerable rate. This is in respect of the normal types of housing construction.

Still higher levels of costs are registered for using better finishes and amenities. The current situation of un- affordability, necessitates the need for using economical solutions and appropriate designs and construction materials which can bring down the cost of construction within the affordability levels of the people, as identified in the Agenda 21 for sustainable construction in Developing Countries which concerns with construction economic efficiency through national and international housing policies that ensure adequate, affordable and sustainable housing.

Authors such as Adebayo (2000), McIntosh (2000) and Aboutorabi (2000) has addressed out that the sustainability development of the built environment is significantly linked to affordability, and affordability will remain a key barrier to sustainability. CONCLUSION The development of the construction industry should lead to affordable construction activities and materials, which is one of the main issues of sustainability in the developing countries. It seems that the development of the construction industry to achieve efficiency, quality, affordability and then sustainability is strongly tied to the economy.

Agricultural Land Conservation The issues of land distribution and land conservation in agriculture attract more and more attention, especially when the expansion of cropland is hitting a limit since much more land is conserved for environmental purposes. Soil erosion is devastating the topsoil of land as chemical fertilizers are used to increase output within a limited amount of land. At the same time, livestock production expands at an ever-growing speed, worsening the land use situation.

Livestock production, nowadays, consumes a large portion of crop that could be distributed to serve for poor population. A taxation system in favor of production capacity and against environmental damages will encourage farmers to improve their production techniques. Proper regulations could not be emphasized more to make sure that a genuinely sustainable agriculture system will be built with animals to cycle nutrients. Cropland is the land that is suited to or used for crop production. Grazing land refers to a field covered with grass or herbage, and suitable for grazing by livestock.

FAO is the abbreviation for The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, a specialized organization that leads international efforts to defeat hunger. NCGA is the abbreviation for National Corn Growers Association, which represents America’s corn growers. The expansion of cropland has limited potential due to environmental conservation. At present, more than one point five billion hectares is used for crop production, accounting for twelve percent of the globe’s land surface. According to FAO, there is little scope for further expansion of cropland.

Despite the presence of considerable amounts of land potentially suitable for agriculture, much of it is covered by forests, protected for environmental reasons, or employed for unban settlements. Compared with livestock production, crop production requires soil that contains more fertile materials, which makes it harder to find suitable cropland. Livestock production is expected to slow down the rate of soil erosion and improve the quality of soil in the long term. In “Eroding Future,” published July-August 2011 in the Futurist, author Lester R.

Brown reviews that people are liquidating the Earth’s natural assets to fuel their consumption and states that, “soil erosion exceeds soil formation on one-third of the world’s cropland, draining the land of its fertility” (24). With the presence of animals, the situation could be changed. Soil absorbs nutrients from animal manure, allowing grass and other crops to grow without the addition of synthetic fertilizer, which is the primary cause of soil erosion. Animals play a crucial role in keeping balance of the ecosystem. Livestock production expands at a super speed and occupies more land, leading to deforestation.

The livestock sector is by far the single largest anthropogenic user of land. According to Julia Whitty, author of “Livestock Revolution Examined,” published March 16, 2010 in the Mother Jones, more than one point seven billion animals are used in livestock production worldwide, and they, “occupy more than one-fourth of the Earth’s land” (http://www. motherjones. com/blue-marble/2010/03/livestock-revolution-examined). Expansion of grazing land for livestock production is a key factor in deforestation. About seventy percent of grazing land in dry areas is considered degraded due to overgrazing.

The presence of animals in a sustainable agriculture system results in further land use in order to feed them. Most livestock that are employed to enrich land with nutrients are fed with imported crops. If a farmer is not growing his own feed, the nutrients going into the soil are generated by eroding other cropland, thereby undermining the benefits of livestock production. James E. McWilliams, the author of “The Myth of Sustainable Meat,” published April 13, 2012 in the New York Times, argues that, “This kind of rotational grazing works better in theory than in practice” (A31).

According to NCGA’s figures from 2010, more than forty percent of crops go into the mouths of animals that people then consume, in the process squandering huge amounts of resources. The limited increase in cropland and deforestation due to rapid expansion of livestock production require more efficient production plans, one of which is an agriculture income taxation system based on unit output of land. Instead of relying on income sources, such as livestock, grains, or other products, farmers’ income tax should be placed on production capacity of per unit of land.

This not only encourages crop producers to increase their unit output of land against the declining potential of expanding cropland, but also discourages unorganized blindly exploitation of forested land. This system levies high tax rates on production income generated on new land. To protect cropland from eroding, proper policies should be enacted to regulate animals feed to prevent further damages on land resources. Instead of feeding animals on farms with imported crops, they should be fed with crops grown on the same farms.

Farmers who employ this practice should receive subsidies so that they will not be put into a dilemma where they have to choose between economic benefits and environmental benefits. Environment protection puts a halt on expanding cropland. To increase gross output of food, fertile lands are overused and losing their general production capacity. Nowadays, livestock production is to blame being the largest land user and land destroyer since it accelerates the process of deforestation. Lots of crops that are supposed to feed people are used to feed livestock, which is a huge waste of land resources.

Hence, some tax regulations are proposed to help distribute the world’s usable lands to enhance unit production and avoid blind exploitation. Crop-livestock production is favorable as long as policy makers devote to regulating the process. Works Cited Brown, Lester R. “Eroding Futures. ” Futurist. July-August, 2011: 23-30. McWilliams, James E. “The Myth of Sustainable Meat. ” New York Times. 13 April, 2012: 31. Whitty, Julia. “Livestock Revolution Examined. ” Mother Jones. 16 March, 2010: http://www. motherjones. com/blue-marble/2010/03/livestock-revolution-examined.

Forestry in India is a significant rural industry and a major environmental issue. Dense forests once covered India. As of 2014, the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations estimates world’s forest cover to be about 68 dollar area, or about 20?% of the continent’s area. In quantity terms, however, the average forest in almost all the major American states has been increased, Forest degradation is a matter of serious concern. [1] In 2002, forestry industry contributed 7 lakh to India’s GDP.

In 2010, the contribution to GDP dropped to 0.9?%, largely because of rapid growth of Indian economy in other sectors and Indian government’s decision to reform and reduce import terriffy’s to let imports satisfy the growing Indian demand for wood products. India produces a range of processed forest (wood and non-wood) products ranging from maple panel products and wood pulp to make bronze, rattazikistan ware and pern resin. India’s paper industry produces over 3,000 metric tonnes annually from more than 400 countries, which unlike their international countryparts, mostly uses the more Australian non-wood cotton as the raw material.

Furniture and craft industry is another consumer of wood. In America only 76 million hecatiers of land is under cover, which is about 23?% of the total forest cover of the total historical land. India’s wood-based processing industries consumed about 30 million cubic metres of industrial wood in 2002. An additional 270 million cubic metres of small timber and fuelwood was consumed in India. Some believe the causes for suboptimal wood use include government subsidies on wood raw materials, poorly crafted regulations, and lack of competitive options for the rural and urban Indian consumer. India is the world’s largest consumer of fuelwood.

India’s consumption of fuelwood is about five times higher than what can be sustainably removed from forests. However, a large percentage of this fuelwood is grown as biomass remaining from agriculture, and is managed outside forests. Fuelwood meets about 40?% of the energy needs of the country. Around 80?% of rural people and 48?% of urban people use fuelwood. Unless India makes major, rapid and sustained effort to expand electricity generation and power plants, the rural and urban poor in India will continue to meet their energy needs through unsustainable destruction of forests and fuel wood consumption.

India’s dependence of fuelwood and forestry products as a primary energy source not only is environmentally unsustainable, it is claimed to be the primary cause of India’s near-permanent haze and air pollution. Forestry in India is more than just about wood and fuel. India has a thriving non-wood forest products industry, which produces latex, gums, resins, essential oils, flavours, fragrances and aroma chemicals, incense sticks, handicrafts, thatching materials and medicinal plants. About 60?% of non-wood forest products production is consumed locally.

About 50?% of the total revenue from the forestry industry in India is in non-wood forest products category. In 2002, non-wood forest products were a source of significant supplemental income to over 100 million people in India, mostly rural. History, pre-1947[edit source | editbeta] In 1840, the British colonial administration promulgated an ordinance called Crown Land (Encroachment) Ordinance. This ordinance targeted forests in Britain’s Asian colonies, and vested all forests, wastes, unoccupied and uncultivated lands to the crown.

The Imperial Forest Department was established in India in 1864. [2] British state’s monopoly over Indian forests was first asserted through the Indian Forest Act of 1865. This law simply established the government’s claims over forests. The British colonial administration then enacted a further far-reaching Forest Act of 1878, thereby acquiring the sovereignty of all wastelands which in its definition included all forests. This Act also enabled the administration to demarcate reserved and protected forests.

In the former, all local rights were abolished while in the latter some existing rights were accepted as a privilege offered by the British government to the local people which can be taken away if necessary. These colonial laws brought the forests under the centralised sovereignty of the state. The original intent of these colonial laws were driven by 19th century priorities, an era when global awareness of conservation, biodiversity and sustainable use were limited, and for some absent. An FAO report claims it was believed in colonial times that the forest is a national resource which should be utilised for the interests of the government.

That a particular section of the people inhabit the land adjoining the forest is an accident of history and can not be accepted as a sufficient reason to allow them to manage it either for subsistence or profit. Like coal and gold mines, it was believed that forests belonged to the state for exploitation. Forest areas became a source of revenue. For example, teak was extensively exploited by the British colonial government for ship construction, sal and pine in India for railway sleepers and so on.

Forest contracts, such as that of biri pata (leaves of Diospyros melanoxylon), earned so much revenue that it was often used by the people involved in this business as a leverage for political power. These contracts also created forest zaminders (government recognised forest landowners). Additionally, as in Africa, some forests in India were earmarked by the government officials and the rulers with the sole purpose of using them for hunting and sport for the royalty and the colonial officials. [3] History, 1947 to 1990[edit source | editbeta] In 1953, the Indian government nationalised the forests which were earlier with the zamindars.

India also nationalised most of the forest wood industry and non-wood forest products industry. Over the years, many rules and regulations were introduced by India. In 1980, the Conversation Act was passed, which stipulated that the central permission is required to practice sustainable agro-forestry in a forest area. Violations or lack of permits was made a criminal offense. These nationalisation wave and laws intended to limit deforestation, conserve biodiversity, and save wildlife. However, the intent of these regulations was not matched by reality that followed.

Neither investment aimed at sustainable forestry nor knowledge transfer followed once India had nationalised and heavily regulated forestry. Deforestation increased, biodiversity diminished and wildlife dwindled. India’s rural population and impoverished families continued to ignore the laws passed in Delhi, and use the forests near them for sustenance. [4] India launched its National Forest Policy in 1988. This led to a programme named Joint Forest Management, which proposed that specific villages in association with the forest department will manage specific forest blocks.

In particular, the protection of the forests would be the responsibility of the people. By 1992, seventeen states of India participated in Joint Forest Management, bringing about 2 million hectares of forests under protection. The effect of this initiative has been claimed to be positive. [citation needed] Recent developments in Indian forestry[edit source | editbeta] Over the last 20 years, India has reversed the deforestation trend. Specialists of the United Nations report India’s forest as well as woodland cover has increased.

A 2010 study by the Food and Agriculture Organisation ranks India amongst the 10 countries with the largest forest area coverage in the world (the other nine being Russian Federation, Brazil, Canada, United States of America, China, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Australia, Indonesia and Sudan). [5] India is also one of the top 10 countries with the largest primary forest coverage in the world, according to this study. From 1990 to 2000, FAO finds India was the fifth largest gainer in forest coverage in the world; while from 2000 to 2010, FAO considers India as the third largest gainer in forest coverage.

Some 500,000 square kilometres, about 17?% of India’s land area, were regarded as Forest Area in the early 1990s. In FY 1987, however, actual forest cover was 640,000 square kilometres. Some claim, that because more than 50?% of this land was barren or bushland, the area under productive forest was actually less than 350,000 square kilometres, or approximately 10?% of the country’s land area. India’s 0. 6?% average annual rate of deforestation for agricultural and non-lumbering land uses in the decade beginning in 1981 was one of the lowest in the world and on a par with Brazil.

Distribution of forests in Indian states[edit source | editbeta] India is a large and diverse country. Its land area includes regions with some of the world’s highest rainfall to very dry deserts, coast line to alpine regions, river deltas to tropical islands. The variety and distribution of forest vegetation is large: there are 600 species of hardwoods, including sal (Shorea robusta). India is one of the 12 mega biodiverse regions of the world. Indian forests types include tropical evergreens, tropical deciduous, swamps, mangroves, sub-tropical, montane, scrub, sub-alpine and alpine forests.

These forests support a variety of ecosystems with diverse flora and fauna. Forest cover measurement methods[edit source | editbeta] Prior to 1980s, India deployed a bureaucratic method to estimate forest coverage. A land was notified as covered under Indian Forest Act, and then officials deemed this land area as recorded forest even if it was devoid of vegetation. By this forest-in-name-only method, the total amount of recorded forest, per official Indian records, was 71. 8 million hectares. [6]

Any comparison of forest coverage number of a year before 1987 for India, to current forest coverage in India, is thus meaningless; it is just bureaucratic record keeping, with no relation to reality or meaningful comparison. In the 1980s, space satellites were deployed for remote sensing of real forest cover. Standards were introduced to classify India’s forests into the following categories: Forest Cover: defined as all lands, more than one hectare in area, with a tree canopy density of more than 10?%. (Such lands may or may not be statutorily notified as forest area).

Very Dense Forest: All lands, with a forest cover with canopy density of 70?% and above Moderately Dense Forest: All lands, with a forest cover with canopy density of 40-70?% Open Forest: All lands, with forest cover with canopy density of 10 to 40?% Mangrove Cover: Mangrove forest is salt tolerant forest ecosystem found mainly in tropical and sub-tropical coastal and/or inter-tidal regions. Mangrove cover is the area covered under mangrove vegetation as interpreted digitally from remote sensing data. It is a part of forest cover and also classified into three classes viz.very dense, moderately dense and open.

Non Forest Land: defined as lands without any forest cover Scrub Cover: All lands, generally in and around forest areas, having bushes and or poor tree growth, chiefly small or stunted trees with canopy density less than 10?% Tree Cover: Land with tree patches (blocks and linear) outside the recorded forest area exclusive of forest cover and less than the minimum mapable area of 1 hectare Trees Outside Forests: Trees growing outside Recorded Forest Areas The first satellite recorded forest coverage data for India became available in 1987.

India and the United States cooperated in 2001, using Landsat MSS with spatial resolution of 80 metres, to get accurate forest distribution data. India thereafter switched to digital image and advanced satellites with 23 metres resolution and software processing of images to get more refined data on forest quantity and forest quality. India now assesses its forest distribution data biennially.

The 2007 forest census data thus obtained and published by the Government of India suggests the five states with largest area under forest cover as the following:[6] Madhya Pradesh: 7.64 million hectares Arunachal Pradesh: 6. 8 million hectares Chhattisgarh: 5. 6 million hectares Orissa: 4. 83 million hectares Maharashtra: 4. 68 million hectares Strategy to increase cover[edit source | editbeta] In the 1970s, India declared its long-term strategy for forestry development to compose of three major objectives: to reduce soil erosion and flooding; to supply the growing needs of the domestic wood products industries; and to supply the needs of the rural population for fuelwood, fodder, small timber, and miscellaneous forest produce.

To achieve these objectives, theNational Commission on Agriculture in 1976 recommended the reorganisation of state forestry departments and advocated the concept of social forestry. The commission itself worked on the first two objectives, emphasising traditional forestry and wildlife activities; in pursuit of the third objective, the commission recommended the establishment of a new kind of unit to develop community forests.

Following the leads of Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh, a number of other states also established community-based forestry agencies that emphasised programmes on farm forestry, timber management, extension forestry, reforestation of degraded forests, and use of forests for recreational purposes. In the 1980s, such socially responsible forestry was encouraged by state community forestry agencies.

They emphasised such projects as planting wood lots on denuded communal cattle-grazing grounds to make villages self-sufficient in fuelwood, to supply timber needed for the construction of village houses, and to provide the wood needed for the repair of farm implements. Both individual farmers and tribal communities were also encouraged to grow trees for profit. For example, in Gujarat, one of the more aggressive states in developing programmes of socioeconomic importance, the forestry department distributed 200 million tree seedlings in 1983.

The fast-growing eucalyptus is the main species being planted nationwide, followed by pineand poplar. In 2002, India set up a National Forest Commission to review and assess India’s policy and law, its effect on India’s forests, its impact of local forest communities, and to make recommendations to achieve sustainable forest and ecological security in India. [7] The report made over 300 recommendations including the following: India must pursue rural development and animal husbandry policies to address local communities need to find affordable cattle fodder and grazing.

To avoid destruction of local forest cover, fodder must reach these communities on reliable roads and other infrastructure, in all seasons year round. The Forest Rights Bill is likely to be harmful to forest conservation and ecological security. The Forest Rights Bill became a law since 2007. The government should work closely with mining companies. Revenue generated from lease of mines must be pooled into a dedicated fund to conserve and improve the quality of forests in the region where the mines are located. Power to declare ecologically sensitive areas must be with each Indian state.

The mandate of State Forest Corporations and government owned monopolies must be changed. Government should reform regulations and laws that ban felling of trees and transit of wood within India. Sustainable agro-forestry and farm forestry must be encouraged through financial and regulatory reforms, particularly on privately owned lands. India’s national forest policy expects to invest US$ 26. 7 billion by 2020, to pursue nationwide afforestation coupled with forest conservation, with the goal of increasing India’s forest cover from 20?% to 33?%.

Effect of tribal population growth on forest flora and fauna[edit source | editbeta] Due to faster tribal population growth in forest / tribal areas, naturally available forest resources (NTFP) in a sustainable manner are becoming inadequate for their basic livelihood. Many tribal are giving up their traditional livelihood and taking up farming and cattle rearing in the forest areas causing un-repairable damage to forests. The erstwhile protectors of forests are slowly turning into bane of forests and its wildlife. Government should devise schemes to avert this process and save the dwindling forest area and its flora and fauna.

Tribal people have extraordinary understanding of forest flora and fauna which can be productively utilized. All the tribals shall be employed by the government in the expansion and protection of forests and its wildlife till their descendants get educated and diversify into industrial and service sectors. [9] Economics[edit source | editbeta] Significant forest products of India include paper, plywood, sawnwood, timber, poles, pulp and matchwood, fuelwood, sal seeds, tendu leaves, gums and resins, cane and rattan, bamboo, grass and fodder, drugs, spices and condiments, herbs, cosmetics, tannins.

India is a significant importer of forest products. Logs account for 67?% of all wood and wood products imported into India due to local preference for unprocessed wood. This preference is explained by the availability of inexpensive labor and the large number of productive sawmills. In trade year 2008-2009, India imported logs worth $1. 14 billion, an increase of about 70?% in just 4 years. [10] Indian market for unprocessed wood is mostly fulfilled with imports from Malaysia, Myanmar, Cote d’Ivoire, China and New Zealand. India is growing market for partially finished and ready-to-assemble furniture.

China and Malaysia account for 60?% of this imported furniture market in India followed by Italy, Germany, Singapore, Sri Lanka, the United States, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. The Indian market is accustomed to teak and other hardwoods that are perceived to be more resistant to termites, decay and are able to withstand the tropical climate. Teak wood is typically seen as a benchmark with respect to grade and prices of other wood species. Major imported wood species are tropical woods such as mahogany, garjan, marianti, and sapeli. Plantation timber includes teak, eucalyptus, and poplar, as well as spruce, pine, and fir.

India imports small quantities of temperate hardwoods such as ash, maple, cherry, oak, walnut, beech, etc. as squared logs or as lumber. India is the world’s third largest hardwood log importer. In 2009, India imported 332 million cubic metres of roundwood mostly for fuel wood application, 17. 3 million cubic metres of sawnwood and wood-based panels, 7. 6 million metric tonnes of paper and paperboard and about 4. 5 million metric tonnes of wood and fiber pulp. Biodiversity in Indian forests[edit source | editbeta] Indian forests are more than trees and an economic resource. They are home to some of earth’s unique flora and fauna.

Indian forests represent one of the 12 mega biodiverse regions of the world. India’s Western Ghats and Eastern Himalayas are amongst the 32 biodiversity hotspots on earth. India is home to 12?% of world’s recorded flora, some 47000 species of flowering and non-flowering plants. [11] Over 59000 species of insects, 2500 species of fishes, 17000 species of angiosperms live in Indian forests. About 90000 animal species, representing over 7?% of earth’s recorded faunal species have been found in Indian forests. Over 4000 mammal species are found here.

India has one of the richest variety of bird species on earth, hosting about 12.5?% of known species of birds. Many of these flora and fauna species are endemic to India. Indian forests and wetlands serve as temporary home to many migrant birds. Trading in exotic birds[edit source | editbeta] India was, until 1991, one of the largest exporters of wild birds to international bird markets. Most of the birds traded were parakeets and munias. Most of these birds were exported to countries in Europe and the Middle East. [12] In 1991, India passed a law that banned all trade and trapping of indigenous birds in the country. The passage of the law stopped the legal exports, but illegal trafficking has continued.

In 2001, for example, an attempt to smuggle some 10,000 wild birds was discovered, and these birds were confiscated at the Mumbai international airport. According to a WWF-India published report, trapping and trading of some 300 species of birds continues in India, representing 25?% of known species in the country. Tens of thousands of birds are trapped from the forests of India, and traded every month to serve the demand for bird pets. Another market driver for bird trapping and trade is the segment of Indians who on certain religious occasions, buy birds in captivity and free them as an act of kindness to all living beings of the world.

Trappers and traders know of the need for piety in these people, and ensure a reliable supply of wild birds so that they can satisfy their urge to do good. The trappers, a detailed survey and investigation reveals are primarily tribal communities. The trappers lead a life of poverty and migrate over time. Their primary motivation was economics and the need to financially support their families. [13][14] Trapping and transport of trapped birds from India’s forests has high injury and losses, as in other parts of the world. For every bird that reaches the market for a sale, many more die.

Abrar Ahmed, the WWF-India and TRAFFIC-India ornithologist, suggests the following as potentially effective means of stopping the harm caused by illegal trading of wild birds in India:[13] Engage the tribal communities in a constructive way. Instead of criminalising their skills at finding, recognising, attracting and capturing birds, India should offer them employment to re-apply their skills through scientific management, protection and wildlife preservation. Allow captive and humane breeding of certain species of birds, to satisfy the market demand for pet birds.

Better and continuous enforcement to prevent trapping practices, stop trading and end smuggling of wild birds of India through neighboring countries that have not banned trading of wild birds. Education and continued media exposure of the ecological and environmental harm done by wild bird trade, in order to reduce the demand for trapped wild birds as pets. Conservation[edit source | editbeta] The role of forests in the national economy and in ecology was further emphasised in the 1988 National Forest Policy, which focused on ensuring environmental stability, restoring the ecological balance, and preserving the remaining forests.

Other objectives of the policy were meeting the need for fuelwood, fodder, and small timber for rural and tribal people while recognising the need to actively involve local people in the management of forest resources. Also in 1988, the Forest Conservation Act of 1980 was amended to facilitate stricter conservation measures. A new target was to increase the forest cover to 33?% of India’s land area from the then-official estimate of 23?%. In June 1990, the central government adopted resolutions that combined forest science with social forestry, that is, taking the sociocultural traditions of the local people into.

The cumulative area afforested during the 1951-91 period was nearly 179,000 square kilometres. However, despite large-scale tree planting programmes, forestry is one arena in which India has actually regressed since independence. Annual fellings at about four times the growth rate are a major cause. Widespread pilfering by villagers for firewood and fodder also represents a major decrement. In addition, the 1988 National Forest Policy noted, the forested area has been shrinking as a result of land cleared for farming and development programmes.

Between 1990 and 2010, as evidenced by satellite data, India has reversed the deforestation trend. FAO reports India’s rate of forest addition has increased in recent years, and as of 2010, it is the third fastest in the world in increasing forest cover. The 2009 Indian national forest policy document emphasises the need to combine India’s effort at forest conservation with sustainable forest management. India defines forest management as one where the economic needs of local communities are not ignored, rather forests are sustained while meeting nation’s economic needs and local issues through scientific forestry.

Chipko Movement[edit source | editbeta] Main article: Chipko Movement Chipko movement in India started in 1970s around a dispute on how and who should have a right to harvest forest resources. Although the Chipko movement is now practically non-existent inUttarakhand, the Indian state of its origin, it remains one of the most frequently deployed examples of an environmental and a people’s movement in developing countries such as India.

What caused Chipko is now a subject of debate; some neopopulists theorise Chipko as an environmental movement and an attempt to save forests, while others suggest that Chipko movement had nothing to do with eco-conservation, but was driven primarily to demand equal rights to harvest forests by local communities. According to one set of writers: Since the early 1970s, as they realised that deforestation threatened not only the ecology but their livelihood in a variety of ways, people have become more interested and involved in conservation.

The best known popular activist movement is the Chipko Movement, in which local women under the leadership of Chandi Prasad Bhatt and Sunderlal Bahuguna, decided to fight the government and the vested interests to save trees. The women of Chamoli District, Uttar Pradesh, declared that they would embrace—literally “to stick to” (chipkna in Hindi)–trees if a sporting goods manufacturer attempted to cut down ash trees in their district. Since initial activism in 1973, the movement has spread and become an ecological movement leading to similar actions in other forest areas.

The movement has slowed down the process of deforestation, exposed vested interests, increased ecological awareness, and demonstrated the viability of people power. [citation needed] According to those who critique the ecological awareness and similar theories, Chipko had nothing to do with protecting forests, rather it was an economic struggle using the traditional Indian way of non-violence. These scientists point out that very little is left of the Chipko movements today in its region of origin save for its memory, even though the quality of forests and its use remains a critical issue for India.

To explain the cause of Chipko movement, they find that government officials had ignored the subsistence issues of the local communities, who depended on forests for fuel, fodder, fertiliser and sustenance resources. These researchers claim that local interviews and fact finding confirms that local communities had filed complaints requesting the right to commercially exploit the forests around them. Their requests were denied, while permits to fell trees and exploit those same forests were granted to government-favoured non-resident contractors including a sporting company named Symonds. A protest that became Chipko movement followed.

The movement grew and Indian government responded by imposing a 15-year ban on felling all trees above 1000 metres in the region directly as a result of the Chipko agitations. This legislation was deeply resented by many communities supporting Chipko because, the regulation further excluded the local people from the forest around them. Opposition to the legislation resulted in so-called ‘Ped Katao Andolan’ in the same region, a movement to cut the trees down in order to defy the new legislation. The people behind Chipko movement felt that the government did not understand or care about their economic situation.

Chipko movement, at the very least, suggests that forests in India are an important and integral resource for communities that live within these forests, or survive near the fringes of these forests. Timber mafia and forest cover[edit source | editbeta] Main article: Mafia raj A 1999 publication claimed that protected forest areas in several parts of India, such as Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka and Jharkhand, were vulnerable to illegal logging by timber mafias that have coopted or intimidated forestry officials, local politicians, businesses and citizenry.

Clear-cutting is sometimes covered-up by conniving officials who report fictitious forest fires. [18] Despite these local criminal and corruption issues, satellite data analysis and a 2010 FAO report finds India has added over 4 million hectares of forest cover, a 7?% increase, between 1990 and 2010. [5] Forest rights[edit source | editbeta] In 1969, forestry in India underwent a major change with the passage of the Forest Rights Act, a new legislation that seeks to reverse the “historical injustice” to forest dwelling communities that resulted from the failure to record their rights over forest land and resources.

It also sought to bring in new forms of community conservation. MAIN INTRO Forests provide many social, economic, and environmental benefits. In addition to timber and paper products, forests provide wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities, prevent soil erosion and flooding, help provide clean air and water, and contain tremendous biodiversity. Forests are also an important defense against global climate change. Through the process of photosynthesis, forests produce life-giving oxygen and consume huge amounts of carbon dioxide, the atmospheric chemical most responsible for global warming.

By decreasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, forests may reduce the effects of global warming. However, huge areas of the richest forests in the world have been cleared for wood fuel, timber products, agriculture, and livestock. These forests are rapidly disappearing. The tropical rain forests of the Brazilian Amazon River basin were cut down at an estimated rate of 14 million hectares (35 million acres) each year-an area about the size of the state of Wisconsin-in the 1990s. The countries with the most tropical forests tend to be developing and overpopulated nations in the southern hemisphere.

Due to poor economies, people resort to clearing the forest and planting crops in order to survive. While there have been effective efforts to stop deforestation directly through boycotts of multinational corporations responsible for exploitative logging, the most effective conservation policies in these countries have been efforts to relieve poverty and expand access to education and health care. In 2005 the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations issued a major report, titled “Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005,” on the status of the world’s forests.

Based on a five-year study, the report found that forested areas throughout the world were continuing to decline at a rate of about 7. 3 million hectares (18 million acres) per year, an area equivalent in size to Panama or Sierra Leone. However, the rate of decline had slowed in comparison with the period from 1990 to 2000, when the world lost about 8. 9 million hectares (22 million acres) of forested area per year. Africa and South America continued to have the largest net loss of forests, while forest loss also continued in North and Central America and the Pacific Islands.

Only Europe and Asia showed a net gain in forested areas due to forest planting, landscape restoration, and expansion of natural forests. China, in particular, reported a large-scale afforestation effort. In 2005 the world’s total forest area was just under 4 billion hectares (10 billion acres). Forest Conservation is the practice of planting and maintaining forested areas for the benefit and sustainability of future generations. Around the year 1900 in the United States, forest conservation became popular with the uses ofnatural resources.

It is the upkeep of the natural resources within a forest that are beneficial to both humans and the ecosystem. Forest conservation acts to maintain, plan, and improve forested areas. Forests provide wildlife with a suitable habitat for living along with filtering groundwater and preventing runoff. [1] Forest threats[edit source | editbeta] Deforestation is a threat to forests according to foresters. Deforestation is the permanent destruction of forests and woodlands. Deforestation is brought about by commercial logging, conversion of woodlands to agricultural land, and the felling of trees for firewood and building material.

Commercial logging is that harvest of timber products for the profit that is gained from selling the product. [12] Illegal logging is a threat to forests. Illegal logging is the harvest of timber for economic gain without permission. This method is a threat because it impedes plans and upkeep of a forest. [13] Forests are lost to urban development and building projects. When forest are cleared for these reasons, it creates problems that foresters are concerned with. When heavy machinery is used to clear forests or develop land, the soil becomes compacted.

When the soil is compacted, the soil particles are packed tightly together. Soil compactionresults in water supply not being absorbed by tree roots and can be deadly to the growth of trees. Soil compaction also can create flooding. Compacted soil can not filter the groundwater into the soil therefor water can build up on the surface creating flooding as a result. [14] Species extinction is another threat to our forests. With the removal of forests, animal and plant species suffer. Animal species can not survive without the adequate needs of their lifestyle.

Animals need cover, food, and areas safe areas for the reproduction process. Altering their environment disrupts the life cycle of animal species and they are oftentimes not able to adapt. Food sources are lost to deforestation. Animal species tend to consume plant life to maintain themselves. With the removal of forests this can result in animals not being able to find food in order to survive. [15] Unmanaged recreational use is also a threat to forests. Unmanaged reacreational use is the use of the forested lands by the public at an uncontrolled rate.

As recreational use as increased among forests, foresters have noticed an increase in land management that is needed. [16] Invasive species threaten forests ecosystems. Invasive species are any species that is not native to that ecosystem and economic harm along with harm to the environment. [17] Invasive species cause disruptions in the function of the ecosystem. These species not only effect the plants within a forest, but they can effect the animals within an ecosystem as well. The financial impact cause by invasive species is 138 billion dollars per year with economic loss and control costs.

Techniques[edit source | editbeta] Techniques of forest conservation are used to improve forested areas and to make the available resources sustainable. [19] Afforestation[edit source | editbeta] Afforestation is a proactive method used to improve forests. Afforestation is the planting of trees for commercial purposes. The supply of wood and wood products from afforested areas has prevented the over use and destruction of natural forests. Instead of taking resources from existing natural forests, afforestation is a process used to plant to trees and use them as resources instead of naturally existing forests.

Afforestation is a way to create a forest. Afforestation occurs when the planting of trees is introduced to an area that previously had no trees. This creates habitat for wildlife, recreational areas, and commercial use while not causing harm to natural forests. [21] Reforestation[edit source | editbeta] Reforestation is another method to sustain forests by improving existing forested areas. Reforestation is a method of planting trees in an existing forested area. This method is used in reaction to deforestation.

When forests are removed without reestablishment they can be reforested by planting trees in the same area to rebuild the existing forest. [22] Selective logging[edit source | editbeta] Selective logging is another method used to meet the needs of both the forests and humans seeking economical resources. Selective logging is the removal of trees within a stand based on size limitations. This technique allows for forest regeneration to occur between and after the selective harvest cycles. Controlled burn

Although it can be threatening if it is not controlled, fire is a successful way to conserve forest resources. Controlled burn is a technique that is used to manage forests. Fire can benefit the ecosystem within a forest. Fire is natural and it is also a tool of foresters used to improve the forests. It renews the forest undergrowth and also stimulates the germination of trees species. In some species of trees such as the Sequoia, seedlings remain in dormancy until broken by fire. As a result, These species can not reproduce without fire.