SOME THOUGHTS ABOUT MONOCULTURES IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES.
The following has been adapted from a paper presented at a "Weedworks"
Workshop at Rotorua New Zealand (March 1993) "The tree nursery ... Mother
of plantations."
The full paper is "in press" and will be included in an FRI Bulletin.
Currently, the worldwide ratio of natural forests to plantation monocutlure
is about 26/1 (see Table). This ratio will likely decrease if the present
rate of deforestation of natural stands continues. The ratio is already
1/13 (1 ha of natural forests to 13 ha of plantations) in the UK (Savill and
Evans 1986). One question that should be addressed is how much land should
be monocultures? Is 1% of the world's land base too much or too little?
Should we have 5% of the world's land in plantations and 26% in natural
stands? In contrast, should we stay with just 1% in plantations and
continue in the tradition of the British to consume wood from natural stands
until the natural stand/plantation ratio is 1/13? World leaders need to ask
this question now if the answer requires the creation of more nurseries and
more monocultures.
TABLE 1. The percentage of land in forests and plantations, the production
of roundwood for 1989 and the estimated firewood/charcoal usage for 2010
(FAO 1991; USDA 1988; Suchek 1991). (The term forests includes both natural
forests and plantations).
____________________________________________________________________________
______
Predicted
Percentage of Roundwood Roundwood Firewood use
landbase in production production in 2010
____________________
Forests plantations cubic meters cm/capita cubic meters
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------ ----%-------
WORLD 27 1.0 3,462,639,000 0.66 2,395,000,000
Sweden 59 11.1 55,740,000 6.62 4,555,000
UK 9 8.4 6,462,000 0.11 377,000
USA (SOUTH) 35 4.0 161,000,000 2.70 30,223,000
NZ 26 3.7 10,557,000 3.07 55,000
S. Korea 66 2.9 6,803,000 0.15 4,219,000
China 13 2.9 272,665,000 0.24 232,579,000
Japan 63 2.6 31,936,000 0.62 985,000
Chile 11 1.7 16,864,000 1.28 7,234,000
Canada 28 1.5 176,976,000 6.60 8,073,000
Argentina 16 1.4 10,819,000 0.33 5,869,000
USA 24 1.3 533,168,000 2.11 129,574,000
Australia 5 1.1 20,041,000 1.19 3,236,000
S. Africa 1 1.1 19,361,000 0.50 10,783,000
Malawi 46 1.0 7,621,000 0.77 12,509,000
Brazil 61 0.6 220,623,000 1.40 182,679,000
Zambia 40 0.1 12,204,000 1.46 22,886,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Exactly how much land would be needed to supply all the world's
wood needs from plantation monocultures? If the world consumes 3.5 billion
m3/yr, then we might be able to supply this amount with 350 million ha of
intensively managed plantations (assuming an average mean annual increment
[MAI] of 10 m3/ha/yr). This would amount to 2.7% of the world's land
base. However, if we need to produce 7 billion m3/yr (to meet the future
demand for wood) then 5.5% of the world's land base might be able to produce
a "sustainable" supply of wood. These percentages would be maximum
percentages since indigenous peoples would likely continue to salvage wood
from indigenous woodlands. This appears to be the case even when laws are
enacted to discourage such use (Mather 1990).
On the other extreme, monocultures would not be necessary if a large portion
of natural woodlands were managed on a sustainable basis. However, the MAI
of indigenous woodlands is not as high as for plantations (Evans 1982;
Burley et al. 1989; Mather 1992). For example, in Latin America,
plantations make up less than 1% of the productive forest area but account
for 30% of industrial wood production (Evans 1987). In some areas in Africa,
monocultures produce at least five times as much as the original forest.
Managed natural forests in the Ivory Coast yield from 1.5 to 2.0 m3/ha/yr
(Burley et al. 1989). If it were possible to manage indigenous forests for
wood production on a sustainable basis, and the "sustainable" MAI was 3
m3/ha/yr, then we would need to manage 2.3 billion ha to supply 7 billion
m3/yr. This would equate to about 58% of the world's forest and woodlands.
A more realistic question is where should the wood to be consumed in 2010
come from? How much should come from managed naturally regenerated stands
and how much should come from monocultures?
The answer to whether the world needs more monocultures will vary depending
upon the point of view of the individual. Those with a long-term, global
view see an important role for plantations (e.g. Eckholm 1975). Those with
a short-term, parochial view may not see a need for more plantations. For
example, some relatively wealthy individuals (who usually live in developed
countries and rely heavily on burning fossil fuels) believe there are
currently too many monocultures. Some individuals, in countries where 3 to
11% of the land base is covered with conifer plantations (see Table),
believe that agricultural fields should not be planted with conifers. Some
believe that conifer stands will harm water quality more than farmland
(where agrochemicals are used).
A few individuals even believe that wood production is not increased when
using plantations. This idea was supported by a statement by the past Chief
of the US Forest Service. In June of 1992, Chief Robertson indicated that
timber yields from naturally regenerated stands "will be about the same" as
those from plantations of genetically improved stock. As a result, the "New
Perspectives" in management of publicly owned woodlands in the US will
de-emphasise the use of nursery stock. Seedling production by the US Forest
Service is expected to fall in the Pacific Northwest from an average of 55
million/yr to only 8 million/yr. In my opinion, the US Forest Service is
certainly yielding to public views and is reducing emphasis on tree planting.
In contrast, many individuals from relatively poor regions of the world
believe there need for more plantations. Many people spend a good portion
of their time and income obtaining wood. In many developing countries, wood
is so scarce that manure is used for fuel (which depletes the soil of
nutrients). Since about 81% of the plantations are in developed countries,
should charitable organisations consider redistributing surplus plantation
wood in the same fashion as surplus food? Currently, wood and wood products
are easily redistributed to countries that are wealthy. Although neither
the UK nor Pakistan have enough plantations to meet the demand for wood, the
UK can afford to import more than 0.8 m3/person/yr from other countries.
Many developing countries do not have enough plantations to meet the demand
for wood and cannot afford to import large quantities. For example, one
Indian official said that "Even if we somehow grow enough food for our
people in the year 2000, how in the world will they cook it?" (Ayensu et al.
1980).
Much of the world's annual consumption of wood is for fuel for cooking,
heating and power production. Of the approximately 3.45 billion m3 consumed
annually, about 52% is used for fuel (FAO 1991). By the year 2010, it is
predicted that the volume of wood harvested for fuel will increase by 34% to
2.4 billion m3/yr. The increase in demand for energy in developed countries
will be met by an increase in mining fossil fuels and radioactive ores. For
developing countries, the increase will be met in part by the burning of
more wood. Should this wood come from monocultures or natural stands? Some
who have concerns about monocultures do not even mention the need to produce
fuelwood or where they believe fuelwood supplies in 2010 should be obtained.
Perhaps they believe that peoples in developing countries should increase
the use of fossil fuels.
However, the concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere have
been rising steadily and are likely to continue to do so as more and more
coal and petroleum are burned. Developed countries burn most of the world's
fossil fuels while developing countries burn about 85% of the world's
fuelwood. For example, in Somalia, fuelwood accounts for 82% of the
country's energy consumption (Burley et al. 1989). In Somalia, the per
capita fuel consumption was 1.03 m3 in 1984. More than 2.5 billion people
in the world derive at least 50 percent of their energy needs from wood
(Ayensu et al. 1980).
If fuelwood is harvested on a sustainable basis, then harvesting wood for
fuel will not appreciably affect the CO2 levels since the amount released
would be captured later during tree growth. In terms of being "environment
friendly," harvesting monocultures for fuelwood on a sustainable basis is
more "friendly" than using coal or oil to produce electricity to cook food.
Unfortunately, there are not currently enough monocultures to meet the
demand for fuelwood. Despite warnings about the need to plant trees for
firewood plantations (Eckholm 1975), many people in developing countries are
still walking further each day to collect firewood from indigenous forests.
How much of the future demand for fuelwood comes from natural stands and how
much comes from monocultures will depend on how many new monocultures are
established. In my opinion, the developed countries are not doing enough to
help developing countries establish fuelwood monocultures.
David South
School of Forestry
Auburn University, AL 36849-5418
dsouth@forestry.auburn.edu
205-844-1022
205-844-1084 (FAX)
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0