Dear FOREST readers David South posted a question for me on where I would prefer to have how much plantations established to meet future wood demands. It would ofcourse be impossible for me to give exact figures so I will not try do do so. David was probably trying to trick me, but is is apparent that he wants more plantations. Though his objects for more plantations are not at all clear to me. Earlier his question was put forward in a mailing-string on this list, where the discussion was on sustainable forestry. Now, he uses the same examples in a disussion on forests and plantations as CO2 sequestrators. Well, I think there is a big difference in objects. Plantation should not be made just for the sake of the plantations themselves. The objects must be well defined and obtainable. With regard to combat of the CO2 loading, other activties would be much more effecient and far-sighted - see below. I have to make one correction to my first posting on the CO2 subject: I have just learned from a friend (an expert in athmosphere subjects and working with ice core drillings on Greenland) that the seas today are very close to be saturated with CO2 and as such can not remove more CO2 from the atmosphere. The new "danger" to Global climate should be methane with exponentially growing loadings to the atmosphere. My friend also put forward that in fact the CO2 sequestration (by whatever means) should be equivalent to the amount of carbon that is pumped up from oil and gas wells - just to put the problems in to context. Surely, plantations can absorbe some CO2 (or carbon generally). But plantations should be established over enormous areas to have some important effect. If I know the World right, such plantation would be established in poor countries where land prices are low, thus probably displacing poor farmers. And what will happen when the planted trees are not growing anymore? Or if the trees are cut and maybe even burned? The plantation strategy only pushes the problems some few years ahead. I still think that control of EMISSIONS is the way to go. By using cleaner technology and reducing consumation as Nelson Wong argued in his mail of May 6, 9:09AM. To turn to David's arguments I think that at least in the rich part of the World plantations will newer lack. When someone is willing to pay for timber (to whatever use), plantations will be established by landowners and timber producers. A simple matter of market economy. That s fine. Market is often responding much quicker to needs in the developed than in the developing countries.More of a problem, will be to supply the World s poor urban and rural populations with resources; food and energy. Plantations will ofcourse remove some pressure on natural forests, and should as such be established. Calculations on how many hectares to meet expected needs is not for me to say - this is foresters bussines. Taxpayers of the World even pays the officials in FAO to do so. FAO s Expert Consultation on Forestry and Climate Change (1990) came up with a recommendation saying that (re)forestation should be based on sound policy independent of predicted climate change and produce net benefits (for locals). Then, David please make it more clear on which background you want more trees. I grasp easily if it s to fulfill needs for firewood... (A last thing: It is also important what you plant. If you want to sustain biodiversity and do minimum damage to traditions and lives of local human populations native trees should be favoured. Some indigenous prefers firewood from local and native trees - just as some of us prefer to buy German binoculars). Best regards, Thor Hjarsen Centre for Tropical Biodiversity Zoological Museum, University of Copenhagen Universitetsparken 15, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark Fax: + 45 35 32 10 10 E-mail: THjarsen@zmuc.ku.dk -----------------------------------------------------------------
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0