"Plantations does not affect the ecosystems" This is the head line of the newsletter "Reforestar", no. 5, 1996 issued by PROFOR, COSUDE and others (available from: Profor@dicyt.nrc.edu.bo/fax: + 591 42 70 714). PROFOR is a Bolivian based joint venture forestry project partly funded by the Swiss Development Assistance (SDC/COSUDE). Mr. Luis Goitia Arze, forestry expert (of PROFOR) continues in the article in response to a Danish ornithologist's assertions on whether plantations affects ecosystems, that it's essential to understand the concepts of forestry and reforestation to analyse the plantations in Bolivia, Mr. Goitia also says (quoting): "Reforestation (...) is the establishment of forests by natural or artificial means in terrains where there are no forests or where the forests are insufficient. (...) the lack of forestry restoration creates various problems: (...) - loss of fertile top soil in agricultural areas, - low productivity of the soil, - loss of wildlife (...). As biologist I can only agree with such statements, but here comes the funny part: "Goitia indicates that the author (that's me!) who accusates supposed ecological devastation (of PROFOR's exotic plantations) is a specialist in ornithology, and not precisely in forestry. because of this, any criteria concerning plantations should be discussed by experts in the field". The article is a directs response to my publication of data in Bolivia in October/November, 1996 in 2 national newspapers and at 3 public lectures. According the Bolivian forester, my education in Biology is not sufficient to deal with how plantations affect ecosystems. Is far as I remember, ecology is an essential part of a biologists education? I am writing about this to the FORESTlistserver in hope of getting replies that can make me understand the justification of such projects in biological, forestry, economical or social contexts. No one - maybe with similar / opposite experience or other relevant knowledge - have yet explained me this. I have only received very short (and precise) questions on this mailinglistserver. I will try to deal with them all in the following, and unfortunately very long explanation. I do look forward to reactions (and maybe even threats)! The general problem is the lack of natural vegetation and the demand for wood resources in the Andes. Andean grassland below the puna zone (4500 m) is not a natural situation. The habitat is mainly a result of decades of grassburning to provide fresh, green grass to cattle and sheep. In such condition the natural forest can not regenerate. In the same time local farmers depends on natural forests since the soil beneath is more humid and nutrient rich than the grasslands. So the farmers continues to log the natural forest to get to this soil to raise crops. The "old" agricultural areas newer gets the chance to regenerate forest cover and thereby raising nutrient or humidity level in the soil, because of the yearly grass burnings. So these areas are in fact agricultural "dead" and farmers continuously relies on the areas in the steadily diminishing forests. Several anthropological studies have revealed that the farmers rely on the natural forests in terms of: collecting medical plants, plants for cloth dying, in periods with food scarcity, to hunt game and collect wood for fencing fields and firewood etc. If such resources are depleted (by not sufficient regeneration of natural forest) the economically poor farmers gets even more dependent on money to purchase similar resources in the cities. This consequence is indeed not investigated yet, but I think it must be common sense? So the situation observed today with ecological imbalance, lack of water and wood resources and poverty, is a results of unsustainable land management. What the farmers need desperately, is advise and economy to establish and implement more sustainable land use methods that provide sufficient with resources, also to improve health standards. Such projects do take place, but are very time consuming and complex to implement (A major obstacle is the local farmers who are extremely suspicious to strangers (gringos) - including foresters and biologists. Especially those with new, fancy ideas!). Plantation of exotics - especially eucalyptus - has been the answer for many years now. You get a lot of timber in very short time, and also a "forest" cover in larger areas that are supposed to protect the environment. The complexity of the whole situation and the obstacles of introducing new landuse methods is maybe the explanation why fast (read also: easy) and very visible results are sought in the concerned project(s) by making plantations of 20-40 m high exotics? On top of this everyone involved in the project knows they are good money: - the farmers protects the plantations and continues to log natural forests for daily wood demands. The save the plantations for the market. - in PROFOR the local administration (the prefecture) and the project itself gets a part of the timber selling income. So why plant other tress than the most valuable (in economic terms)? In fact the involved agencies in total earns between 10-40% of the selling, according to my information. If protection of soil, water and natural resources is the objective, reforestation with native species would be superior almost anywhere in the world, at least ultimately? Evolution has made sure that such species do not degrade local ecosystems?? Yes, the plantations are planted on what is called marginal terrain. These terrain's appears to be both grassland AND (more concerning to ecologists) also the natural forests. Today these areas are not part of the agricultural system. Why have all the trouble to try to regenerate natural forest or re-enriching soil in former agricultural areas?? PROFOR do plant exotics INSIDE the endangered, native vegetation at several locations - I have photos if you don't believe! Several of the eucalyptus plantations have erosion problems clearly caused by the resulting lack of ground vegetation below the trees. Lack of ground vegetation is normal in eucalyptus stands, but when you make these on slopes and also have people and livestock entering, you get problems with exposed top soil and erosion! No actual measures are done by the project(s) to prevent this from happening. And I haven't mentioned the effects of eucalyptus on soil nutrient level and neighbouring crop production publicised in several references. PROFOR has planted 15 million trees in 12 years - at least 80% is exotics. I do not completely grasp why local communities need such large stretches of Eucalyptus or Pinus, if the wood only is meant for local consumption, or maybe small scale selling to boost village economies. Maybe the agencies earnings from the timber selling is the reason? But all this is "politic" and is not the core of my research - I am just a biologist: My research was aimed to identify the impact on bird diversity and vegetation structure of various human activities in the natural forests by using standard methods to count birds, measure vegetation structure and other physical and anthropogenic factors. I also did my counts in plantations to reveal whether these are a solution to the problems of lacking natural forests. Also the effects of plantations on the local biodiversity had a high priority in my work. The whole thing will be used in the development of more sustainable agro-forestry techniques to be used in development projects in the Andes. My research is part of a 5 year multidisciplinary research programme, called the DIVA programme (more info: Mrs. Mie Svidt on msv@dmu.dk). To give an example of my data, the average Shannon Index (a widely used diversity index) for in my bird observations in each habitat class are: Polylepis forest: 2,65 Other natural vegetation habitats: 2,91 Pinus plantations: 1,66 Eucalyptus plantation: 1,50 Furthermore I have calculated a "rarity score" for the birds observed based in the inverse number of distribution grids (1 degree) in a World Map database on neotropical bird distributions. The reason for this is, the area in my study hold several endangered and endemic bird species (of which several also are Polylepis specialists). My averages for "accumulated rarity scores" in each habitat class are: Polylepis forest: 1,77 Other natural vegetation habitats: 1,53 Pinus plantations: 0,26 Eucalyptus plantation: 0,27 These results indicate that not many of the endemic species occurs in the plantations. Unfortunately I can not find any significant explanations in my bird abundance from human forest/land use activities such as grazing, logging, fields etc. other than the 4 above mentioned habitat classes. Even the rarest Polylepis specialist bird occurs in areas with high human pressure, just as long as inter-field natural vegetation is present. So, all the rare birds do seems to live very well alongside with man - this is an essential result! Another funny thing is, that the Polylepis woodlands are containing 1 tree species: The Polylepis sp. But birds are ofcourse adjusted to this habitat and not to the exotics. I must say that I do not oppose exotics totally, they are necessary to fulfil urgent, local demands for timber. This is indeed a serious problem in my study area, and plantations can remove some pressure from the natural forests. But without considering and incorporating the above mentioned questions (and others), I do not think now such plantations can be justified. The worst thing, is when the officers in charge of the projects, are claiming they only are doing what local farmers are wanting: the income from selling the timber (this statement is also put forward in the above mentioned article). By saying this, the officers should find themselves a new job, in my opinion (!): They are the ones responsible for ANY effects (good or bad) of the projects - NOT the farmers. And if money is the only question of the forestry projects, why not just send the farmers travellers cheques directly from the offices in Switzerland? That's VERY easy! Best regards, Thor Hjarsen *********************************************************** Thor Hjarsen Centre for Tropical Biodiversity Zoological Museum, University of Copenhagen Universitetsparken 15, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark Fax: + 45 35 32 10 10 E-mails: THjarsen@zmuc.ku.dk OR: THX@mst.dk ***********************************************************
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0