DEFORESTATION VERSUS FOREST DEGRADATION
by Antonio C. Antonio
February 4, 2014
“Hosonuma1, et. Al. (2008, An assessment of deforestation and forest
degradation drivers in developing countries: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044009)
stated that “in Africa and Asia,
subsistence and commercial agriculture contribute roughly equally to forest
area change. Agriculture reflects around 80% of deforestation worldwide. Mining
plays a larger role in Africa and Asia than in Latin America. Urban expansion
is most significant in Asia.” If this is true, how can logging
directly or indirectly influence deforestation” (Deforestation is defined as
the conversion of a forest cover into other non-forest landcover.)” (Professor
Renato A. Folledo, Jr.)
There really is a degree of confusion in the usage
of the terms “deforestation” and “forest degradation.” Per Sir Jun:
“Deforestation is defined as the conversion of a forest cover into other
non-forest landcover.” Forest Degradation, on the other hand, is defined
as (http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/j9345e/j9345e08.htm):
·
FAO, 2000: a
reduction of canopy cover or stocking within the forest. (Explanatory note:) For the purpose of having a harmonized set of
forest and forest change definitions, that also is measurable with conventional
techniques, forest degradation is assumed to be indicated by the reduction of
canopy cover and/or stocking of the forest through logging, fire, windfelling
or other events, provided that the canopy cover stays above 10% (cf. definition
of forest). In a more general sense, forest degradation is the long-term
reduction of the overall supply of benefits from forest, which includes wood,
biodiversity and other products or service.
·
FAO 2001, 2006: Changes
within the forest which negatively affect the structure or function of the
stand or site, and thereby lower the capacity to supply products and/or
services. (Explanatory note:) Takes different
forms particularly in open forest formations deriving mainly from human
activities such as overgrazing, overexploitation (for fuelwood or timber),
repeated fires, or due to attacks by insects, diseases, plant parasites or
other natural sources such as cyclones. In most cases, degradation does not
show as a decrease in the area of woody vegetation but rather as a gradual
reduction of biomass, changes in species composition and soil degradation.
Unsustainable logging practices can contribute to degradation if the extraction
of mature trees is not accompanied with their regeneration or if the use of
heavy machinery causes soil compaction or loss of productive forest area.
·
FAO, 2003: the
long-term reduction of the overall potential supply of benefits from the
forest, which includes carbon, wood, biodiversity and other goods and services.
·
UNEP/CBD, 2001: A
degraded forest is a secondary forest that has lost, through human activities,
the structure, function, species composition or productivity normally
associated with a natural forest type expected on that site. Hence, a degraded
forest delivers a reduced supply of goods and services from the given site and
maintains only limited biological diversity. Biological diversity of degraded
forests includes many non-tree components, which may dominate in the
under-canopy vegetation.
·
ITTO, 2002: Long-term
reduction of the overall potential supply of benefits from the forest,
including wood, biodiversity and other products or services.
·
ITTO 2005: a
direct human-induced loss of forest values (particularly carbon), likely to be
characterized by a reduction of tree crown cover. Routine management from which
crown cover will recover within the normal cycle of forest management
operations is not included.
·
IPCC 2003a: a
direct human-induced loss of forest values (particularly carbon), likely to be
characterized by a reduction of tree cover. Routine management from which crown
cover will recover within the normal cycle of forest management operations is
not included.
·
IPCC, 2003b: a
direct human-induced activity that leads to a long-term reduction in forest
carbon stocks.
·
IPCC, 2003c: the
overuse or poor management of forests that leads to long-term reduced biomass
density (carbon stocks).
·
IPCC, 2003d: a
direct human-induced long-term loss (persisting for X years or more) of at
least Y % of forest carbon stocks (and forest values) since time T and not
qualifying as deforestation or an elected activity under Article 3.4 of the
Kyoto Protocol.
Simplifying things, there are two definitions of
degradation. The broad definition is the reduction of forest quality…
therefore, (1) the density and structure of the trees in the forest, (2) the
ecological services supplied by the forest, (3) the biomass of flora and fauna
in the forest, and (4) the species and genetic diversity in the forest.
The narrow definition is the removal of forest cover to allow for a different
or alternative landuse. These definitions (broad and narrow), however,
are also confusingly used by different branches of a single agency. The
broad definition is used by the United Nations Research Institute for Social
Development (UNRISD) while the United Nations – Food and Agriculture
Organization (UN-FAO) uses the narrow definition.
Having made the distinctions in the definition of
the terms deforestation and forest degradation, allow me to mention the
different forms of logging, timber extraction and harvesting systems and
procedures. These are: (1) Selective Logging where only the sick, defective
and over mature trees are harvested; and, (2) Clear-Cutting which is a logging
procedure that entails the harvesting of all the trees in an area regardless of
the health and physical condition of the trees. “Illegal logging” should
fall under selective logging as those which are involved in this harvesting
activity would prefer to use the remaining forest as cover for their nefarious
business. As defined, the clear-cutting system should fall under deforestation
while selective logging could only contribute to forest degradation.
I should mention, however, that tenurial instrument
holders have the obligation to conduct enhancement planting, timber stand
improvement and reforestation activities which differentiates them from illegal
loggers who do not plant a single tree as a matter of practice. From the
illegal logging standpoint, logging contributes to deforestation. In the case
of tenurial instrument holders, although selective logging also contributes to
a lesser degree of forest degradation, the subsequent conduct of reforestation
activities mitigates the effects of forest degradation.
Just my little thoughts…
COMMENTS / REACTIONS:
Clarence Faith Escote (February 6, 2014): “I
agree with Sir Anton, those two types of logging may be considered as drivers
to either (or both) deforestation or forest degradation depending on the range/
degree of changes/impacts that resulted from it.”
Elizabeth
Villezar (February 7, 2014): “I think we
need to grade or re-grade the status of our forest to let everyone be concerned
and responsible in maintaining our forestlands. However we do it depends
on how we value forests. Yes, I agree
that clear cutting is not good for those dipterocarp and other rainforests
located in the Philippines because of ecological balance they bring to our
environment. Clear cutting can neither be applied even to those tree
plantations here in the Philippines because as I've learned from the shared
knowledge of Sir Anton, selective logging is being implemented here as mandated
by the law. Since planted trees do not really mature simultaneously
(presence of pests and other factors that made trees sick and eventually died -
replacements are then planted), only those trees that are matured are being
cut.”
No comments:
Post a Comment