Dear readers, On Jul 12, 4:59pm, David South wrote: >>From: Takehito Nagashima >>Japan is said to be a country of tree, but now result of so much devloping, we >>lost many forest. To me, Japanese are destructing so much environment that we >>have to think about our mother earth again and we must make better forest- >>policy. Do you have any examples please Takehito? > > REPLY FROM: David South > > Japan has about 10.2 million hectares of plantations. > 24.1 million hectares of forests and woodlands. > 37.5 million hectares of land. > 375 thousand hectares of pastures/meadows. > > This means that 27% of the landbase in Japan is in tree plantations. > THIS IS THE HIGHEST PERCENTAGE OF ANY COUNTRY. I guess David was suggesting (because it was in upper case) that the percentage of plantation area means that Japanese forest policy is quite good with respect to that of other countries. Actually the percentage area in plantation is quite irrelevant to Takehito's original statement. That is unless one is considering accepting responsiblity for "we lost many forest". There could be people responsible for loss of forest but they may not be the same ones responsible for preserving forests. > > ...about 37% of the landbase in Japan is in natural stands. > I think it can be argued that the above is good forest policy. Perhaps it can be argued so. But not on the basis of the amount of forest that remains. The amount remaining is quite irrelevant, except in a historical perspective. Because the amount that remains reflects only on previous forest ploicy not on the present, in part because policy is continually changing. What is more relevant is what is happening CURRENTLY to any area of forest. I believe that good forest policy is one that looks after the forest species and includes scope for regaining lost forest ground, if necessary, in order to restabilise local parts of the biosphere. After these aspects have been secured a good forest policy may then include utilisation of it's components for human use. > Unlike many > other countries, only a small amount of forest land has been converted to > pastures. I believe the policy of not converting forests to pastureland is > a good forest policy. Agreed. There's ample pasture land already. But much more is made from forest/scrub in Australia each year. In addition to this it is important that forests are not converted to plantations. This is still done on a large scale in Australia on both private and government (public) land. There is a harmful side effect in that the companies involved are then considered to be investing in plantations or "tree farms" or even "regenration" and thereby gather public acceptance which in turn allows more of the same. > > Japan has a population of about 125 million. > Japan has about 816 square meters of plantation for each person. > > For 1991, wood production in Japan was about 28.272 million m3 > (or about 0.22 m3/person/yr) > > Likewise, Japan imported about 47.018 million m3 in 1991 > (or about 0.37 m3/person/yr) > (about 66% of the wood imported was from developed countries: USA, USSR, > Australia, NZ, Canada) > David, does this include imported wood in the form of woodchips? Tasmania exports over 1 million tonnes/year (nearly 2) and I believe a lot of it goes to Japan. (That's from just one state in Australia.) I haven't heard of density tests on the different eucalypts and myrtles logs from Tasmania but I reckon most of them would float (I've seen the chips at the high tide marks on beaches near the Tamar chip mill.) So a tonne would be close to or greater than a m3 ? > If my math is correct, wood consumption in Japan is about 0.6 m3/person/yr. > Compare this to the USA at about 2.4 m3/person/yr. Again, does this include woodchips and paper? > It would be good if other countries that sell wood to Japan would adopt a > forest policy similar to Japan. Because of the international nature of trade these days does a country's forest policy include it's use of other country's forests? That is, > (a) protect native forests by relying mostly on plantations to supply wood; > (b) protect native forests by not converting forests to pastures (eat less > red meat); > (c) protect native forests by importing plantation wood from New Zealand; > (d) protect native forests by being efficient (i.e. not wasting wood). > (e) protect native forests by keeping the population growth low. > > Other countries could also protect native forests by establishing > plantations on pastures. I believe the above should be considered when > making "better" > forest policy. Well said! Now, how can we get that happening? Regards, Chris. (chris.dean@anu.edu.au) -- chris.dean@anu.edu.au, LPO Box 171, ANU, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia. ----Native animals need protection from imported domesticated humans.---- Disclaimer: The ideas and data etc expressed above are mine and not necessarily those of anyone else.
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0