Preventing Deforestation For Sustainable Development

Preventing Deforestation For Sustainable Development: Tutor Report

Introduction

Sustainable development is mainly concerned with addressing issues interrelated and global such as hunger, poverty, inequality, and environmental degradation. According to (Grieg-Gran, 2006), sustainable development is defined as development that satisfies the present demands without compromising the ability of future generations to satisfy their needs. A report filed by the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development insists on the need to protect the quality of the environment, and maintenance of habitats that are essential to species. Theoretically, development that is sustains the environment while not damaging it is very possible. However, there have been a lot of politics and challenges involved (Grieg-Gran, 2006). Sustainable development calls for community and the members it comprises to fulfill several conditions that would ensure preservation of the overall balance, respect for the environment, and prevention of the exhaustion of natural resources. It focuses on the issues which have led and still lead to worrying social and ecological damage both locally and internationally. One such issue is deforestation.

This paper focuses mainly on the need for the minimization and eventual prevention of the conversion of forestland to farms, ranches, or urban use. It provides In-depth view concerning the causes and effects of deforestation. It also involves analyses of a project which seeks to support the same, and providing recommendations to curbing the issue of deforestation as an environmental hazard. The paper comes at a time when the record on moving towards sustainability so far appears to have been quite poor. The focus is to encourage the development of natural resource policies and programs that aim at minimizing the degree of deforestation.

Background

Forests cover approximately 30% of the total land coverage globally. They are a major source of vital oxygen for every living thing on earth. They mainly act as settlement for people as well as habitants for wildlife. According to (Avery & Burkhart, 2004), many of the world’s most endangered and threatened species live in the forests, while approximately 1.6 billion people rely on the benefits of forests, including shelter, food, water for drinking, clothing material, medicinal extracts, and other forest yields such as rubber and rattan. Unfortunately, however, forests are under a major threat from deforestation, jeopardizing the benefits that people rely on. In the Greater Mekong in Southeast Asia, an area of weak land tenure systems, deforestation has largely encouraged the development of social conflict and the migration of thousands of individuals.

Deforestation takes many forms, including land clearing for agricultural use, practices such as ranch development, forest fires, cutting trees for timber and the effects of climatic change. This heavily impacts upon the livelihood of human beings as well as a range of animal and plant species. An important function of forests is to act as carbon sinks thereby mitigating climate change. Forests help in utilizing free carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and are major attributers of climatic changes. Deforestation greatly undermines this function. Also, it is estimated that 16% of all greenhouse gas effects are the sole result of deforestation. Further, deforestation disrupts water cycles, changing the precipitation of water and river flow. Trees play a major role in the water cycle by enhancing a balance between atmospheric and terrestrial water molecules. However, degradation of forests may throw off this balance. Additionally, deforestation is the major cause of soil erosion in the planet. Trees help in the banking of fertile soil as they prevent it from been swept into rivers and lakes. The plants that are grown on these converted farmlands such as cotton, coffee, and wheat, do not have the ability to hold onto the fertile soil. Research suggests that these plants can facilitate large scale erosion (Avery & Burkhart, 2004). Researchers have also established that one-third of the planet’s fertile lands has been claimed by this uncontrolled erosion, including deforestation, for the last 50 years (Grieg-Gran, 2006). In particular, deforestation is of major apprehension especially in rain forests because they are home of much of the world’s biodiversity.

One of the tropical rainforests under threat is the Amazon forest, which has lost approximately 18% of its forest in the last 50 years, majorly due to the conversion of forest land for cattle ranching. In the region, deforestation is rampant near more populated areas, roads, and rivers. Also, remote areas have also experienced cases of deforestation especially when valuable mahogany trees, oil, and gold are discovered. A lot of organizations, including the WWF (Worldwide Fund), have been working to protect forests for more than 50 years now (Avery & Burkhart, 2004). This involves working with various bodies including the government, stakeholders, and communities to promote certification for responsible forest management practices, address the issue of illegal logging, protection of forested areas, and reform trade policies. Statistics reveal that 46 to 58 million square miles of forest are lost each year. If this is efficiently calculated, it can mean the destruction of approximately 36 football fields every minute. There is great need to fully address the issue of deforestation.

Project Planning and Implementation

The aim of this project is to establish the forest site description in the country and analyzing biodiversity, socio-economic factors, and carbon stocks. Basically, the project is divided into three phases. In the first phase of the project, evidence will be gathered concerning the size of land tenure publicly held, privately held, and collectively held in the community. Evidence will also be obtained concerning the current and potential land use activity. Further, there will be an analysis of the country’s biophysical setting, including the total land area made up of waterways, and the major natural geomorphologic regions. Additionally, an analysis of the country’s biodiversity resources as well as its socioeconomic profile will be conducted. This part will be compiled through desk reviews, including a review of relevant domestic legislation and policy documents, and literature on deforestation policy.

The project’s second phase will involve assessment of forest carbon stock and historical greenhouse carbon (GHC) emissions from deforestation and land use. The aim of this part of the project is to present a description of the base situation for the adoption of a fairly effective strategy for preventing deforestation, providing guidance that would help relevant bodies on the selection of methodologies to account for reductions of emissions caused by forest degradation and deforestation. The method applied for this part of the study includes use of spatially-explicit data sourced from the IPCC 2006 Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories for agriculture, forestry, and other land uses. Diameter at breast height (dbh) data from individual trees will be used to estimate biomass using algometric equations (Grieg-Gran, 2006). The country’s forests will be divided into white sand forests and swamp forests to estimate live tree biomass of forest carbon stocks and GHC emissions. Soil carbon data will also be gleaned and summarized from several sources. Detailed protocols will be developed for sampling and measuring carbon pools in the field, for analysis of the carbon data to produce estimates, and for ensuring quality results for third-party analysis. A forest carbon measurement and monitoring plan will be prepared using stratified, random sampling with nested plots to produce estimates of forest carbon with a precision range of +/- 10% of the mean with 85% to 95% confidence level.

The following table presents a summary of the forest vegetation classes within the country and number of sample plots allocated in the carbon measurement and monitoring plan.

Forestry Commission

# Forest vegetation class Area (ha) Preliminary estimate mean t C/ha (above and below ground live tree biomass) Number of sample plots (95% confidence) Number of sample plots (85% confidence)

1 Mixed rain forest 2,062,181 186 87 69

2 White sand vegetation 918,603 151 40 22

3 Swamp vegetation 319,218 234 19 17

4 Mangrove 320 95 3 2

7 Montane/ Submontane forest 311,189 201 18 13

Phase three will mainly involve development of modeling reference scenarios of future emissions. This is based on the assumption that global carbon markets will contribute to providing revenue for maintaining carbon stocks in forests. Assessment of the GHC emissions caused by change in land use will be estimated. Additionally, the potential of a reduction of the emissions by implementation of forest conservation plan will be evaluated. In order to evaluate how carbon markets may finance an effective environmental plan, potential outcomes from different scenarios of changes of land use will be compared. This part of the project will also involve obtaining data from radar satellite imagery that give an image for the entire country. Carbon stock values for each layer will be derived from forest inventory data (Avery & Burkhart, 2004). The model for the scenarios will be used to spatially distribute future deforestation based on functions of probability and spatially explicit data obtained from the physical, infrastructural, and administrative aspects of the country. The rates of change of land use were select to shed light on the pathway of development assumed for each given scenario. Modeling will be carried out over the entire country.

Project Financial Alternatives

Various alternatives can be used to finance the study’s project. On alternative would be through bundling into a development loan. This perhaps may be the easiest option because the development loan would be repaid over the project’s lifetime. According to Grieg-Gran (2006), administration costs for the project range from $5 to $15 per hectare, which is equivalent to $0.02 to $0.05 per ton of carbon dioxide emitted. The estimates are based on estimates by the national level payments for environmental service schemes. Transaction costs are estimated at $0.39 per ton of carbon dioxide, while implementation costs are estimated at $0.5 per ton of carbon dioxide. However, there is little empirical work on these costs and a number of studies argue against estimation of these costs prior to more resolution. Likewise, while there may be economies of scale in the implementation costs, transactions have the likelihood of being fixed at the project or national level. This simply implies that the value of transaction costs will depend upon the degree of success in the reduction of emissions.

The second alternative involves third-party sale where up-front funding will be secured through the forward sale of credits to a third party such as bank, carbon fund, or a developer, at a negotiated time and price. This will involve the sale of the credits at a discount.

In the third alternative, cost for the project start-up could be through the application of grant financing to a multilateral organization. This can also be done through a bilateral agreement. This may be the hardest alternative to secure, but it may prove to be the cheapest and least risky option.

The fourth alternative would be through the treatment of the maintenance of the project site and a buffer zone of about 100km wide as the project area. This would provide encouraging financial results. The result of such a model may indicate that a fairly small initial investment in the project planning and development phases has the potential to turn the project into a successful tool in the establishment of a low-carbon economy with respect to the best case scenario.

The following tables represent the project revenues. The NPV (Net Present Value) rates correspond to the country’s 5% inflation rate, 10% arbitrary rate, 12% rate used in pre-feasibility study, and 25% rate provided as a minimum rate of return needed by a private sector investor.

$2 per ton of CO2 $5 per ton of CO2 $10 per ton of CO2

Total revenue 1,230,456,414,236 2,437,528,338 5,436,127,653

Mean annual revenue 35,440,620 80,354,754 145,348,436

NPV at 5% $534,878,238 $1,234,939,283 $2,532,243,852

NPV at 10% $382,437,499 $889,438,438 $1,734,502,394

NPV at 12% $385,489,483 $832,400,232 $1,723,744,239

NPV at 25% $223,746,993 $547,063,935 $1,123,470,329

Conclusion

The implementation of the project, including the elements of forest conversation, sustainable forest management, and enhancement of carbon stock will act as a major achievement for the country. The country’s forests, with a forest cover of approximately 75% containing over 5GtCO2 in above ground biomass, and an estimated forest land between 18 million hectares and 19 million hectares with approximately 10% of the area designated as having protection, stands to benefit the country in general.

References

Avery, T. E., & Burkhart, H. E. (2004). Forest Measurements. Massachusetts: McGraw Hill.

Grieg-Gran, M. (2006). The Cost of Avoiding Deforestation: Report prepared for the Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change. International Institute for Environment and Development, London.