Dear Mr. Azlan,
Thanks for your interesting post.
The disparity in international development & conservation policies and
management practices needs to be addressed here. While I have no
intention of creating a 'North vs. South' or 'Us vs. Them' scenario here.
Certain matters are urgently in need of re-evaluation & reconsideration.
In 1992, a transnational EU survey, covering 34 European countries, was
initiated to investigate 184 MM ha. of forests & woodlands.
113 tree species were assessed, altho' six most common species accounted
for nearly 2/3rd. of all tree species - Pinus sylvestris (24%), Picea
abies (23%), Fagus sylvatica (9%), Quercus robur (4%), Pinus pinaster
(4%) & Quercus ilex (3%).
The results:- 24% European trees were considered to be damaged
(defoliation >25%), 10% showed discoloration. Trees affected were of older
age classes (remnants of the old-growth forest ?). Conifers were found to
be marginally more defoliated (24%) than broadleaves (22%). Fir (Abies
spp.) & spruce (Picea spp.) were in the worst condition, with 30% & 26%
damaged trees respectively, of the most common conifers. Picea sitchensis
was the most damaged conifer species. Oak (Quercus spp.) was the most
damaged broadleaf species. Cork oak (Quercus suber) has the highest
percentage of damaged trees of all species (33%). Least damaged on the
other end of the scale was the holm oak (Quercus ilex).
While the report skirted in pinpointing the major contributory factor(s)
to the forest degradation. Five hypothese were proposed:
1. Multiple stress: air-pollution, climatic change, nutrient deficiencies.
2. Soil acidification & aluminium toxicity: deposition of sulphuric &
nitric acids from anthropogenic sources eg. combustion of fossil fuels.
3. Interaction between ozone & acid mist: a higher leaching rates for
potassium, calcium, nitrate, & sulphate. Leads to intensified nutrient
loss from conifers.
4. Magnesium deficiency: reduced magnesium mineralisation & uptake due
to a series of dry periods in Europe.
5. Nitrogen deposition: leads to nitrogen leaching, hence, pollution of
ground water. Nitrogen uptake also contributes to acidification since it
is associated with the uptake of alkaline ions, which causes loss of base
saturation in the soil.
These hypothese are similar to the findings detailed in 'Air Pollution's
Toll on Forests and Crops' - World Resources Institute (WRI).
Primarily, long-range transboundary air-pollution should be of serious
consideration here too. Could this be a contributory factor in the
degradation of Mainland China's forests, via industrial effluents from
Japan, Taiwan and South Korea ? The degradation of Nordic forests by the
same from Russian, German and French industries ? Likewise on Canadian
forests by US industries ?
Air-borned pollutants have been documented for the decline of pines in
the San Bernardino mountains, California; white pine mortality in eastern
USA; neuartige Waldschaeden in Germany & central Europe; decline in the
regeneration of yellow pines in S.E. USA; and sugar maples in N.E. USA.
European contribution to global anthropogenic emissions (1991/2):- CO2
(30%), CH4 (16%), CFCs8 (36%), N2O (7%), NOx (as NO2) (21%), CO (11%),
VOC (NMHC) 25%), & SO2 (25%). I have excluded USA on the advice of an
American forester - Americans take things very personally.
Would Asia esp. the Far East & ASEAN confront or encounter the same set
of problems outlined above ? Yes,it certainly will in the near future as
its economies grow unabated. The solutions to these problems would not be
in polemics. Neither would 'finger-pointing' exonerate any particular group
or nation - East or West, Green or otherwise. Deforestation & forest
degradation is a global problem in dire need of a global solution.
Eg. Malaysia is determine to meet ITTO's guidelines on sustainable
forestry management by the year 2000. Would such efforts be commended &
respected by the international community ? Would co-signatories &
non-signatories endeavor to do likewise ? ITTO's guidelines or ISO 14000,
both require moral & political will & commitment to succeed.
The Hoover Dam has been hailed as the 'Seventh Wonders' of American civil
engineering. Don't ask me what are the other six. Why then, is the Hoover
Dam important to the American economy, but the Bakun Dam is not to
Malaysia's ? Were there absence of biomass removal in the construction of
American or European dams ? Alternatively, we could have a few nuclear
power plants. We could ship all our radioactive waste to Paris for
disposal. This is not an exercise in polemics but certain questions need
to be addressed in an equitable, not equivocal manner. Are critics of the
Bakun Dam aware of the social-economic need & aspiration of the Malaysian
people ?
Poverty, sometimes manifested in the practise of shifting cultivation,
adds to deforestation. The 'World Development Report 1995' by the
World Bank stated for the year, 1993:
COUNTRY: NPV of external debt as % of Total debt services
Exports GNP as % of exports
Mozambique 1,146.7 339.4 20.6
Ghana 234.4 47.6 22.8
Indonesia 194.6 58.5 31.8
Brazil 296.0 26.3 24.4
Colombia 153.5 32.3 29.4
This is a sample of exporters of tropical hardwood. While some may be
impaired by lack of economic reform, thus discouraging foreign
investments. For many, the forest holds the key to survival. Censure by
environmental groups is at best, counter-productive. These same countries
are normally subjected to strong population pressure, and often political
chaos. An unfortunate and vicious, self-feeding, circle of events &
circumstances in human misery.
Foreign aid is a short-term remedy. It has been observed that eg. the
amount of money the USA has spent since 1947 on foreign aid equals more
than 1/3rd. of the federal debt. Much of it has been wasted. In my
opinion, so would green-debts/aid/swap. In the 'Index of Economic
Freedom', Edwin J. Feulner Jr, President, The Heritage Foundation,
commented,'...economic properity & economic freedom go hand in hand.
Lasting prosperity cannot exist in the absence of economic freedom; and a
free economy inevitably results in economic growth and rising living
standards.
My point ? Unless economic reforms are initiated by Third World nations,
and, trade barriers are removed by developed nations. The forests remain
endangered. Hence, the various debates at the WTO. Secondly, developed
nations must demonstrate the same level of commitment in sustainable
forestry management. The Malaysian Prime Minister, has encouraged the
developed nations to match Malaysia's record in maintaining a 50% forest
cover as per total land area, by the year 2000. Any takers ?
Nelson Wong
Malaysian Timber Council
http://www.mtc.com.my
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0