TERM PAPER

PHY-102

“Afforestation & deforestation”DOS: 10/11/10

SUBMITTED TO:- SUBMITTED BY:-

Mr. SREEKANTH REDDY Mr. Vivek Kumar

Department Of physics, Roll no :- 40

Reg. No:-11000518

Section:-E6001

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This is a humble effort to express our sincere gratitude towards those who have guided and helped us to complete this project.

A project reported is major milestone during the study period of a student. We could have faced many problems but our teachers’ kind response to our needs and requirement, their patient approach and their positive criticism helped us in making our project. Very warm thanks to our project-in-charge “Mr. REDDY SIR” with his support and constant encouragement AND LPU LIBRARY it was not very easy without whose support to finish our project. With the motivation of our parent it was very easy to finish our project successfully and satisfactorily in short span of time.

VIVEK KUMAR

Abstract of the work undertaken:-

The “AFORESTATION AND DEFORESTATION” is one the most burning topic of this

present world because the whole globe is concerned about it. It was not a tough task to do

research on this given topic as it is the burning topic about which we are learning since

childhood. This is matter of great pride that I did work on this very topic as it will have graet

effect on the students about their future environment.

The work under this topic was to put a brief analysis on the need of aforestation,

consequences of deforestation. I have given my hundred percent to make this and hope i am

successful in my attempt.

Thank you

Table of contents

Introduction

Afforestation and plantation forestry

SUMMARY

PLANTATION FORESTS

PLANTATION FORESTRY

THE FUTURE OF PLANTATION FORESTRY

IMPORTANCE OF PLANTATION FORESTRY AND SUSTAINABILITY

Brief discussion with data and figure

Causes of deforestation

Need of aforestation

Consequences of deforestation

Reforestation, Afforestation, Deforestation, Climate Change, global warming

Introduction

Deforestation: The Means to an End

Our natural resources are being exploited; things that were once plentiful are now a scarcity.  Our air and water are becoming contaminated due to pollution, causing great harm to the environment. Fortunately, the earth has a natural filter: forests.  Trees composing forests around the world absorb pollutants, fight erosion and produce oxygen for our breathing needs.  Unfortunately, this filter is being cut down as we speak.  Although forests can be harnessed for valuable commodities, deforestation causes irreversible harm to the environment and civilization because it affects biodiversity, results in nutrient depleted soil and enhances greenhouse gas emissions. Forests, especially those in tropical areas are largely uncharted territory.  The life and function of extinct animals such as dinosaurs are well known.  However, this will never be the case for many of the microorganisms, plants and small animals inhabiting tropical forests.  As the biologically diverse Amazon rainforest is being slashed and burned, complex ecosystems are as well. “Scientists

estimate that we are losing more than 137 species of plants and animals every single day because of rainforest deforestation”(“Rainforest Facts”, 2009).  The greater the biodiversity in an ecosystem, the more resilient and productive it will be.  As basic biology will tell you, the removal of one species will affect many more.  This is nothing to be taken lightly when “scientists believe that the canopy may contain half of the world’s species”(“Amazon Rainforest,” 2003). Each one of the approximately 5 million species found in tropical rainforests rely on other animals to survive and hopefully thrive.  At the current rate of destruction, 1.5 acres a second, rainforests will be a mere memory by 2050 (“Rainforest Facts”, 2009).  With such jaw dropping facts, it is a wonder why such an important and amazing thing is being destroyed.  Unfortunately, it seems money is the ultimate motivator, especially in poor areas.  Environmental conservation will continue to take a back burner while deforestation pillages our earth

Afforestation and plantation forestry

SUMMARY

Plantation forests now comprise around 135 million ha globally, with annual plantation Afforestation and reforestation rates nearing 10% of total area. Some 90% of plantation forests have been established primarily to provide industrial wood, and their relative global importance in this role is increasing rapidly. Most of the remaining 10% of plantation forests were established primarily to supply fuel or wood for non-industrial use. About 75% of the existing plantation forest estate is established in temperate regions, but it is in the tropics that the rate of expansion is greatest. The expanding tropical plantation forest estate includes trees grown primarily as agricultural plantation crops and which now also supply wood to forest industries. Almost all existing plantation forests were established and are managed as even-aged monocultures; species and interspecificHybrids of a few genera dominate plantation forestry worldwide. Effective research and development, based on appropriate genetic resources and good silviculture, are the foundations of successful plantation forestry production. Resolving relatively fundamental

Issues remain the priority in many young plantation programmes; in more advanced programmes, the application of more sophisticated technologies - particularly in biotechnology and processing -is necessary to maintain improvements in production. Many plantation forests, particularly in the tropics, are not yet achieving their productive potential. The sustainability of plantation forestry is an issue of wide interest and concern. The evidence from industrial plantation forestry suggests that biological sustainability, in terms of wood yield, islikely to be sustainable provided good practice is maintained. The relative benefits and costs of plantation forestry in broader environmental terms, and in terms of its social impacts, are the subjectof greater controversy, and pose the greatest challenge to plantation foresters as we approach the millennium. Our experience with plantation forestry as it has developed this century offers us anexcellent platform for rising to these challenges.

PLANTATION FORESTS:-

It is difficult, as others (eg Evans 1992, Mather 1993) have commented, to define either “Afforestation” or “plantation forests” precisely. In particular, it is often not easy to distinguish betweenAfforestation and either rehabilitation of degraded forest ecosystems or enrichment planting, or between plantation forests and various forms of trees on farms. The definition proposed by FAO tothe 1967 World Symposium on man-made forests and their industrial importance, which uses as its criterion land use changes associated with afforestation or reforestation, has been the basis ofsubsequent official estimates (eg Pandey 1995), and is adopted here for the sake of

consistency. However, any consideration of plantation forests should acknowledge that the distinction between them and some other forms of forestry is not always clear; thus, definitions, discussion and estimates vary. The global extent of plantation forests in 1990 is estimated at around 135 million ha (FAO 1993, Gauthier 1991, Pandey 1995, Sharma 1992). About 75% of these plantation forests are in temperateregions and about 25% in the tropics and subtropics; some 5% of are found in Africa, a little more than 10% in each of the American continents, some 20% in the former USSR, and around 25% ineach of Asia-Pacific and Europe (Gauthier 1991, Kanowski and Savill 1992). Species

and interspecific hybrids of only a few genera - Acacia, Eucalyptus, Picea and Pinus – dominate plantation forests, with those of a few others - eg Araucaria, Gmelina, Larix, Paraserianthes,Populus, Pseudotsuga or Tectona - of regional importance (Evans 1992, Pandey 1995, Savill and Evans 1986). The ownership of plantation forests extends from governments and large industrialcorporations to individual farmers, and their management varies considerably, from relatively simple and low-input to highly sophisticated and intensive.Most plantation forests have been established as even-aged monoculture crops of trees with the primary purpose of wood production (Evans 1997). Around 90% of existing plantations have beenestablished for the production of wood for industrial use, and most of the remainder to produce wood for use as fuel or roundwood. Some plantation forests are grown and managed, either primarilyor jointly, for non-wood products such as essential oils, tannins, or fodder. The provision of a diverse range of other forest benefits and services, including environmental protection or rehabilitation, recreational opportunities, and CO2 sequestration are also primary or secondary objectives for many plantation forests (Brown 1997, Evans 1992, Gauthier 1991, Kallio et al 1987,Lamb 1995, Myers 1989, Sedjo 1987, Sharma, 1992).Trees grown as agricultural plantation crops - eg rubber or coconut - have not traditionally been considered as forest plantations. However, the distinction between the two forms of plantation culture is diminishing from two perspectives: from that of the forest manager, as rotation ages reduce and the intensity of forest plantation management increases; and from that of the agriculturaltree estate manager, as these crops begin to be used for wood products. The recent example of forest industry development based on wood supply from Asian rubber plantations exemplifies the latter, and

provides a striking example of how shifting supply factors and improved processing technologies can offer opportunities to non-traditional supply sources, and thus expand the plantationBase. Rubber wood recovered from rubber estate re-establishment programmes now substitutes for many traditional industrial uses of natural forest woods from SE Asia, and provides the raw material for newer products such as medium-density fibreboard. Similar processing developments are in train, though as yet less advanced, for the other major tropical estate tree crops, oil palm and coconut.Given the substantial areas of these plantation crops worldwide - estimated at around 7 M ha of rubber estate, 4 M ha of coconut, and 3 M ha of oil palm - they have considerable potential to bothsupplement and compete with production from more conventional plantation forests.The harvest rotations of forest plantations vary enormously, from annual or sub-annual for some non-wood products, to around 200 years for traditionally-managed high-value temperate hardwoods. With few exceptions so far, shorter rotation plantations - typically of 5 to 15 years - have been grown for fuel, fibre or round wood, and longer rotation plantations - typically upwards of 25 years- Principally for sawn or veneer wood products.

Notwithstanding successful antecedents in both temperate (eg oak in Europe) and tropical (eg teak in Asia and India; though see Keh 1997) environments, plantation forests on large scale are a twentieth-century phenomenon. The majority of the world’s plantation forests have been established in the past half-century, and the rate of plantation aforestation has been increasing progressively during this period. Global rates of forest plantation

establishment and re-establishment are poorly known, but are estimated at around 2.6 million ha annually in the tropics (FAO 1993, Pandey 1995), and perhaps 10 million ha in the temperate zones (Mather 1990, 1993). Recent plantation expansion has been greatest in the southern hemisphere: in South America (principally Argentina, Chile and Brazil), Asia (principally Indonesia) and New Zealand, where particular coincidences of public policies, opportunities and market forces have been most conducive to Afforestation. In some countries, eg Indonesia or Chile, plantation establishment remains concentrated on sites converted directly from natural ecosystems; in others, eg New Zealand or Portugal, plantation establishment has shifted entirely to sites formerly used for agriculture. The quality of plantation Afforestation varies widely, and has been especially problematic in some tropical environments (Pandey 1995,1997). Plantation forests currently provide around 10% of the world’s wood harvest; this proportion is rising and will continue to rise rapidly, as the area of natural forest available for harvesting diminishes, as economic pressures and technological change favour plantation crops, and as the plantation forest estate matures and expands. The contribution of plantations to wood production within domesticeconomies varies enormously, reflecting different forest endowments and policies - from, for example, nearly 100% in New Zealand or South Africa, to around 50% in Argentina or Zimbabwe, to negligible levels in Canada or Papua New Guinea.Given the wood production objectives of most plantation forests, and the commodity nature of most wood markets, plantation growth rates are of fundamental importance because of their implications

for the cost of wood at harvest. Only around 10% of existing plantations can be classified as “fast-growing” (in SuttonÕs (1991a) terms, yielding more than 14 m3/yr); most of these plantationsare in the southern hemisphere, with around 40% in each of South America and Asia-Pacific. The majority of “fast-growing” plantations are of species such as Acacia or Eucalyptus grown on shortrotations for the relatively low-value uses of fuel, fibre or round wood; perhaps a third are longer rotation crops, of either softwood or hardwood species, grown principally for sawn- or veneer wood.Global supply and trade forecasts, for both plantation production and its share of total wood harvest, are imprecise and complicated by the uncertainties of demand growth within developingEconomies - as Apsey and Reed (1996) comment, “the ... challenge is to sort out the hype from the reality with respect to fast growing plantations. Until this is done, a good share of strategic planningrests on a whirlpool of speculation”. Imprecision notwithstanding, it is apparent that fast-growing plantation forests are already the most cost-competitive source of pulpwood globally, and that theexpansion of the plantation resource is likely to constrain pulpwood price increases over the next decade. As the availability and relative importance in trade of higher-value wood products fromplantation forests increase, so too will the influence of the plantation harvest on both supply and demand options for these products.

PLANTATION FORESTRY:-Plantation forestry at a global or semi-global scale has been the subject of a number of recent reviews (eg Carrere and Lohmann 1996, Evans 1992, Kanowski et

al 1992, Mather 1993, Pandey 1995, Sargent and Bass 1992, Savill and Evans 1986, Shell/WWF 1992). These reviews highlight some important common

elements and trends: Use of well-adapted genetic resources, and good silviculture at all stages from nursery to harvest, are the two technical foundations of successful plantation forestry; each can make the difference between resounding success and abject failure. Many tropical plantations are not achieving their production potential because of inadequate attention to these fundamental elements (Pandey 1997). Successful plantation forestry is also based on sound and substantial research and development, its implementation in operational management, and the maintenance of close links between research and practice as each evolves. There is ample evidence of the adverse consequences of failing to link adequately research and practice (eg Evans 1992, Kanowski and Savill 1992, Napompeth and MacDicken 1990, Palmer 1988);l Many plantation forestry programmes have been founded on and developed through international: and regional cooperation; the century-long history of cooperative research under IUFRO auspices (Burley and Adlard 1992), and the more recent role of FAO, demonstrate the many benefits of collaboration to plantation researchers and managers. As Burdon (1992) and Williams (1996), amongst others, have observed, the increasingly proprietary nature of researchchallenges these cooperative foundations;l The appropriate level of research varies with the stage of development of the plantation programme. For example, as many papers to this Congress (eg Aminah 1997, Biblis 1997,Genç and Bilir 1997, KÚzmaz 1997, Lemcoff et al 1997, Salerno and Giménez 1997, Sharma et al 1997, Stanturf et al 1997, Tunçtaner 1997, ZoralÚoZlu 1997) demonstrate, there remain many fundamental questions which must be resolved to support new plantation programmes.The continuing expansion of plantation forests onto sites for which there is as yet little plantation forestry experience will continue to demand such fundamental research. In contrast, as other

papers to this Congress illustrate (eg Evans 1997, Popov et al 1997, Watt et al 1997), for programmes that are already well-established, increasingly sophisticated research and development will be necessary to deliver or maintain gains; As in other primary production enterprises, advanced technologies are playing an increasingly important role in plantation forestry:Applications of biotechnology in forestry have recently been reviewed by Haines (1994); those currently of most relevance are genomic mapping, molecular markers, transformation and micro propagation. Their application in the production and propagation of interspecific hybrids is of particular interest to many plantation programmes. The implementation of many biotechnologies are interdependent, andmost are dependent for delivery on successful clonal propagation techniques, whichare now in operational use in many programmes. The optimal integration ofbiotechnologies with plantation forestry is programme-specific, as demonstrated bynumerous examples (eg Griffin 1996, Watt et al 1997, Wilson et al 1995);w Advances in processing technologies are allowing the use of smaller and youngertrees, and of species not previously considered suitable for value-added processing(eg papers to Topic 19, this Congress); Adequate planning and decision support systems are central to successful plantation enterprises. Appropriate systems range from the relatively simple (eg AhlbŠck 1997) to the sophisticated (eg Pritchard 1989); the lack of effective systems has been a major constraint to, in particular, many tropical plantation enterprises (Pandey 1997); l There is long history of concern for the biological sustainability of plantation forestry (Evans 1997). As plantation forests expand, so too have concerns for their sustainability in the broader sense (eg Hughes 1994, Carrere and Lohmann 1996). The sustainability of plantation

forestry is now an issue in terms of each of its biological, economic and social dimensions, as well as in the more holistic sense of their conjunction (Barbier 1987);

sustainability concerns in plantation forestry have a number of manifestations, as outlined below;

THE FUTURE OF PLANTATION FORESTRY:-

I have suggested elsewhere (Kanowski 1995, 1997) that there is evidence of an emerging dichotomy in plantation forestry concept and practice, between what I have characterised as relatively simpler and relatively more complex production systems. Plantation forests as we know them are relatively simple production systems, typically even-aged monocultures, with the capacity to producewood yields many times - often at least tenfold - greater than most natural forests. The importance of simple plantation forests in meeting the wood needs of societies will continue to increase;providing they are well-managed, these plantation forests should satisfy sustainability criteria (Sutton1991b, Evans 1997). This plantation forestry for commodity production benefits considerably from economies ofscale and integration with industrial processing; it is also under strong cost and profit pressure, thus both demanding and permitting relatively high levels of resource inputs. Consequently, it will beincreasingly concentrated on those sites which are inherently more productive than on those which are marginal, and from which the costs of transport to processors are least. The implication is ofplantation programmes which are more intensive silviculturally and less extensive geographically, located where the forest land base is stable, secure and productive (Bingham 1985, Gauthier 1991),and where the economics of wood production - in terms both of cost structures within forestry andof relativities with other land uses - are most favourable. Prevailing political ideologies suggest these plantations will

increasingly be under private, or quasi-private, ownership and management.Whilst successful - sometimes outstandingly - in producing wood, simple plantation systems do not necessarily address well the other needs of societies in which they are embedded. Where - as inmuch of the less economically-developed world - land is scare, time horizons short, or demand strong for the non-industrial products and services of forests, the outputs of simple productionsystems are unlikely to meet the more complex needs of societies. In these circumstances, a broaderconception of plantation forestry and range of plantation objectives, and a more intimate integration with other land uses, are essential if plantation forestry is to prosper and be sustained.More complex plantation forestry explicitly recognises that wood is not the only product that people demand of forests, and seeks to maximise social benefits rather than just wood production.The particular expression of plantation forestry - where it lies along the continuum from simple to complex - will depend on the particular context; in developing a more complex plantation forestry, we have much to gain from our experiences of a wide spectrum of forestry activities, including agro forestry, community forestry, and simpler plantation forestry.More complex plantation forestry will be characterised variously by: A more intimate association between forests and other land uses. Simple plantation forestry is typified by a sharp distinction between plantation forest and other land use. The boundary betweenplantation forest and non-forest use will become less distinct as plantation forestry becomes more complex. The various

taungya systems, widely practised as means of Afforestation in the tropics (Evans 1992), are an example of this complexity at the early stages of plantation forestry; much farm forestry (eg Grayson 1993, Lefroy and Scott 1994) demonstrates such integrationat the level of the farm enterprise, irrespective of the particular configuration of tree growing;lMore direct involvement of local people in the conception and implementation of plantation forestry, and in the sharing of its benefits and products. The variety of joint venture or share farmer schemes, which recognise landownersÕ interests and priorities as well as those of theforest industryÕs, exemplify this for the case of farm forestry. There is increasing understanding of how participatory planning, management and use might be developed and practised in a forestrycontext (eg Arnold and Stewart 1991, FAO 1985, Griffin 1988, Gilmour and Fisher 1992), and this approach now characterises some programmes involving plantation forestry (eg Gilmour et al 1989, Arnold 1992). As the presence or absence of trees is important in determining land tenure in many societies (eg Arnold and Stewart 1991, Cornista and Escueta 1990, Fortmannand Bruce 1993), locally-appropriate tenure arrangements are essential to facilitate morecomplex plantation forestry (eg Sargent 1990);l More diverse species composition and plantation structure, yielding an earlier and more continuing flow of a wider range of products and services than result from simple plantation forests. This does not necessarily imply that tree species will grown as polycultures, though

this may offer advantages in particular circumstances (eg Ball et al 1995, Wormald 1992). In others, a mosaic of relatively small blocks of different tree species may be more easily managed,but still yield the desired range of outputs.

IMPORTANCE OF PLANTATION FORESTRY AND SUSTAINABILITYAlthough estimates vary, the total area of forest plantations in the world amount to between 120 and 140 million hectares. What is less uncertain is that the amount of

new planting (afforestation) is increasing in both temperate and tropical countries. In the tropics especially the present rate of

planting of 2-3 million hectares per year is double that recorded in the 1960s and 1970s (FAO 1992; Evans 1992). The purpose of such plantations is mostly either for industrial production ordomestic use as building poles, fuelwood and fodder. The great bulk of forest plantations are of uniform age and uniform composition (monoculture) and most are managed to optimise the yield of wood from the site. Also, clearfelling and replanting is the commonest silvicultural system, although, where appropriate, coppicing is used as a means ofre-stocking. These features of plantation silviculture - uniformity of crop, intensity of production and concentration of working - have raised concerns that many of the sites on which trees areplanted may be incapable of sustaining their productivity. Models of nutrient export, examination of physical damage of soil structure, and claims of greater risk from pests and diseases have allbeen advanced as reasons why intensive plantation forestry may be inherently unsustainable. The question of sustainability, at least in the narrow biological sense, has long been a concern in agriculture particularly with arable cropping. Several long-term experiments exist in different countries of which the oldest and most famous is Broadbalk Field at Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, England. Since 1843 successive crops of wheat have continuously been grown and assessed. Over a long period yields from the control treatment, which received no fertiliser andonly minimal cultural treatment to control weeds, has remained low but stable (Johnston 1994). This work has shown that even after 150 years the land itself has not become “wheat-sick” and that

low yields arise from low external inputs (though these are rising, notably the anthropogenic ally derived nitrogen mainly in rainfall, currently up to c. 30 kg ha-1y-1). Unfortunately, factual evidence concerning long-term productivity of forest plantations remains meagre. But without it foresters cannot properly demonstrate how robust their silviculture is and cannot refute claims that successive rotations of fast-growing trees inevitably leads to soil deterioration. This paper examines the evidence of yield decline and reports in detail on the best data sets in the world, which describe the performance of three successive rotations on the samesite (Evans 1996). The subject was reviewed by the author in the 8th World Forestry Congress in Jakarta in 1978 (Evans 1978). Since then significant new information has arisen which is germaneto the question of sustainability.

BRIEF DISCUSSION ON THE GIVEN TOIPIC WITH AVAILABLE DATA

Humans have been cutting down tress since the dawn of time.  The wood is a

great source of fuel and building materials, while the barren land can be used for

farming and cattle rearing.  However, with every action there is an equally and opposite reaction.  Deforestation results in nutrient depleted soil and eventually erosion.  The freshly exposed soil of the forest floor is extremely vulnerable to the elements.  In it’s natural environment, the soil is shielded by the canopy and receives very little light. The Amazon rainforest alone receives nine feet of rainfall a year; fifty percent of it returns to the atmosphere through the foliage of trees (“Amazon Rainforest,” 2003).  When all of these protective layers are removed, the result is detrimental. The rain washes away nutrients and the sun dries the soil.  In a few short years, the land is no longer fertile and soon abandoned.  Due to nutrient depletion, there is little to no hope of reforestation (Frey, 2002).  This unfortunate cycle is exemplified in Africa.  Africa is currently experiencing deforestation four times faster than other countries.  It is thought in the early 1900’s Africa was home to 193,000 square miles of coastal rainforest, currently, only 22.8 percent is left standing (Butler, 2009).  Deforestation has resulted in the dessert we now know Africa to be.  The visible affects of deforestation are alarming, however the seemingly invisible consequences are detrimental to life on earth.

Trees are vital to life; they capture carbon dioxide and produce oxygen for us to breathe through photosynthesis.  These “carbon sinks” assist in cleaning up after carbon producing humans and are overall vital to life. “Every year humans add over 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide [to] the atmosphere” through simple actions such as breathing, fires, and deforestation (Hopwood & Cohen).  In order to harness the forest’s valuable commodity, the trees are either cut down or burned to create coal. “The largest anthropogenic

contributor to the greenhouse effect is carbon dioxide gas emissions, about 77% of which comes from the combustion of fossil fuels and 22% of which is attributed to deforestation”(Hopewood & Cohen).  The fuel to run chainsaws and heavy machinery as well as the trucks to transport the timber and coal contribute to this statistic.  In addition, “as we burn down [trees], carbon is released into the air and the carbon bonds with oxygen to form carbon dioxide, adding to the greenhouse effect”( Hopewood & Cohen).  Normally, the production of excess carbon would be counteracted with the naturally occurring process of photosynthesis. “The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that U.S. forests absorb between one million and three million metric tons of carbon dioxide each year, perhaps offsetting between 20 percent and 46 percent of the country’s greenhouse-gas emissions”(Johnson, 2009).  Unfortunately, as deforestation progresses, less carbon dioxide can be recycled resulting in additional carbon.  Deforestation is a recognized contributor of green house gasses and subsequently global climate change.  Many nations have recognized this pressing issue and have started action, however it is impossible to know if the world will ever recover.

The positive and negative aspect of deforestation :-

Earth and the lives of everything that depends on it - from the smallest bacteria to the largest sea creatures - rest on a delicate matter and that is balance. A single, seemingly harmless disturbance in this balance has consequences that are both beneficial and disadvantageous. One of these is deforestation.

Deforestation has always been a practice of many developing communities and has contributed greatly to civilization as we know it today. Unfortunately, much of the ill effects of deforestation is caused by greed, bad agricultural practices and government neglect.

Why forests are important: -

Other than for their beauty, forests are highly responsible in keeping and sustaining global ecosystems. In fact, much of the quality of life we enjoy, we owe to the forests. It is also the home of more than half of all creatures and organisms in this planet. From food to life-saving medicines, forests give mankind a variety of gifts that contribute much to our quality of life.

The positive consequences of deforestation: -

Depending on the needs of the social group concerned, deforestation has made it possible for communities to be built. Forests make way for residential houses, office buildings and factories. Governments are able to build roads to make trade and transport easier and therefore more convenient to residents.

Deforestation can also mean the conversion of forest land to productive land for agricultural uses. This results in better and more abundant production of food and materials, virtually eradicating periods of want and lack. Economically, deforestation has contributed much in

giving many communities the opportunity to make positive changes in their lives.

The negative consequences of deforestation: -

Unfortunately, the negative consequences of deforestation far outweigh its positive effects. Here are a few of them:

1. Exposing soil to heat and rain. When forests are cleared, soil cover, which consists mainly of vegetation, is removed as well. This exposes the bare soil to extreme conditions produced by the sun's heat and rainwater.

With these activities alternating, the soil quickly compacts. As rainwater flows, it will wash out the nutrients and other organic materials that make the soil rich and fertile. Add to that the frequent activities of tilling, cropping and grazing which gradually results to the degradation of the soil's quality.

These practices are specially a concern in areas where forest zones are drier. Agriculture practice on top of deforestation can result to the desertification of many areas. Desertification is also a direct result of the demand for the soil to produce more (as a consequence of the increase in human population), thereby decreasing to a significant degree the land's carrying capacity.

2. Flooding. Deforestation can result to watersheds that are no longer able to sustain and regulate water flows from rivers and streams. Trees are highly effective in absorbing water quantities, keeping the amount of water in watersheds to a manageable level. The forest also serves as a cover against erosion. Once they are gone, too much water can result to downstream flooding, many of which have caused disasters in many parts of the world.

As fertile topsoil is eroded and flooded into the lower regions, many coastal fisheries and coral reefs suffer from the sedimentation brought by the flooding. This results to negative effects in the economic viability of many businesses and fatalities in wildlife population.

3. Non-suitability of deforested areas for conversion. Most of the areas that have undergone deforestation are actually unsuitable for long-term agricultural use such as ranching and farming. Once deprived of their forest cover, the lands rapidly degrade in quality, losing their fertility and arability.

The soil in many deforested areas is also unsuitable for supporting annual crops. Much of the grassy areas are also not as productive compared to more arable soils and are therefore not fit for long-term cattle grazing.

4. The displacement of indigenous communities and their traditional way of life. When governments decide to offer forests for deforestation mainly to open up areas for 'civilized' communities, access to forest resources by indigenous peoples are ignored. In fact, indigenous peoples are hardly included in economic and political decisions that directly affect their lives. This encroachment ignores their rights as much as it takes away the resources that their ancestors have bestowed upon them.

5. The loss in the number of biodiversity. This is probably the most serious consequence of deforestation. Put simply, it means the destruction and extinction of many plant and animal species, many of whom remain unknown and whose benefits will be left undiscovered.

Each year, as deforestation continues, much of the wilderness from which we benefit and would have continued to

benefit from will be lost forever. With it are the millions of chances in the form of plants and wildlife that could bring us many economic and medical solutions to pressing problems we currently face.

While it's true deforestation has brought with it opportunities to improve our lives, we have not mastered the right kind of responsibility that goes with having control over our planet's resources. As a result, we and all the other creatures on this planet suffer greatly from the consequences of our actions.

Reforestation, Afforestation, Deforestation,

Climate Change and GLOBAL WARMING:-

Deforestation affects climate change be-cause it releases the carbon stored in the plants and soils and alters the physical properties of the surface (Bala et al., 2007). Tropical ecosystems are the most productive, and changes to them are likely to have the greatest impact on climate change. Models predict that their loss will have a global warming effect and experiments suggest that afforestation projects in the tropics could help mitigate global warming since they are the most effective carbon sinks in the short term (Bala et al., 2007; Malhi et al., 2002). Worldwide, women have played an important role in preserving tropical forests. For example, in Zimbabwe, women’s groups (over half of the 800,000 families living in communal areas are headed by women) manage forest resource

and development projects through woodlot ownership, tree planting and nursery development.

• Men and women often have different productive and reproductive roles with regard to forest resource management. They play different parts in planting, protecting or caring for seedlings and small trees, as well as in planting and maintaining homestead woodlots and plantations on public lands. Men are more likely to be involved in extracting timber and non-timber forest products (NTFPs) for commercial purposes. Women typically gather forest products for fuel, fencing, food for the family, fodder for livestock and raw materials to produce natural medicines, all of which help to increase family income.

Since 2001, under the Maya Nut Program supported by The Equilibrium Fund, women in Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Honduras have planted 400,000 Maya Nut trees (Brosimum aliscastrum ). The Equi-librium Fund is trying to participate in

carbon trading with the USA and Europe to show how specific projects could help improve women’s lives, adapt to changes caused by climate change and reduce greenhouse gases (The Equilibrium Fund, 2007).

• The Mama Watoto Women’s group in Kenya was formed in 1990 to address the scarcity of fuelwood and poverty of rural women. This scarcity forced women to collect wood from forest reserves, thereby exposing them to legal penalties. In response, the women established “women-made forests” in sections within their own farms. The afforestation programme improved soil fertility, reduced illegal harvesting, and increased the vegetation cover in the Kambiri region that could sequester carbon (FAO, 1994). • In the Uttarakhand region of the Himalayas, the

Chipko Movement comprises hundreds of decentralized and locally autonomous initiatives. Its leaders and activists are

primarily village women. The Movement demonstrated that women can make a difference when protecting forests and developing afforestation projects. Their afforestation programme not only reduced landslides, but also solved the problem of fuel and fodder. Women looked after the trees so carefully that the survival rate was between 60–80% (Joshi, 2007). Some of the other major achievements of the Chipko Movement have been: a 15-year ban on green felling in the Himalayan forests in Uttar Pradesh; a ban on clear felling in the Western Ghats and the Vindhyas; and greater pressure for a natural resource

policy that is more sensitive to people’s needs and ecological requirements.

• In Sudan, with the support of UNHCR, IUCN and FNC (Forest National Corporation) women are planting gardens and trees around their houses. These provide them with shade, windbreaks, fuelwood and fruit. At the same time, it gives them more security, as they don’t need to go so far to get their fuelwood anymore. Very often women are victims of assault when they have to go far away from their village or refugee camps in Sudan, and having the

trees close by, makes their lives both easier and safer.

• In South-East Cameroon, when the Baka people discussed their vision of the future, men and women turned out to have different visions. Women would like to have bigger community forests so they can manage their own forests and harvest NTFPs – they are the ones who regularly go and gather food, wild fruits, roots, wild yams and also raw materials for making crafts/baskets/mats (all essential for their livelihoods).

• The distribution of economic incentives achieved through REDD (reduce emissions from deforestation and land degradation) or payments for ecosystem services (PES) for carbon storage and new carbon sinks should be equitable among men and women. An analysis of several India and Nepal community forest groups highlighted the fact that, in most cases, cash is not distributed equally and funds are commonly invested in resources or activities from which women were unlikely to benefit, such as club repair, purchasing community utensils, rugs, drums, etc. (Agarwal, 2002).

• In many cases, the market price for a hectare of sequestered carbon offset is 50 times more than the price obtained from converting that hectare to other land uses (Chomitz et al. 2006). Informing women about such resources could help improve their household incomes and allow them to decide which strategies are most favourable for their environment and for themselves.

• Women’s empowerment is now being linked to climate change solutions. In November 2006, Kenya’s Greenbelt Movement, founded by Nobel Peace Laureate Wangari Maathai, and the World Bank’s Community Development Carbon Fund,

signed an emissions reductions purchase agreement to reforest two mountain areas in Kenya. Women’s groups will plant thousands of trees, an activity that will also provide poor rural women with a small income and some economic independence. Women’s empowerment through this process will also capture 350,000 tons of carbon dioxide, restore soil lost to erosion, and support regular rainfall essential to Kenya’s farmers and hydro-electric power plants.

• The lack of women’s participation in the forestry industry has proven to have detrimental effects. Reforestation projects in India and Nepal without a gender perspective faced problems when replanting, protecting the forests and implementing rules that protect the reserves (Agarwal, 2002). Another project that faced similar problems was the Noel Kempff Climate Action Project. This project aimed to meet conservation needs and earn carbon credits. However, most of their goals were not achieved because the benefits were inequitable and there was little or no participation at all of women in the forestry team, conservation team, government technical support, or community councils (Boyd, 2002).

Forests are home to 300 million people around the world and they contribute to the livelihoods of many of the 1.2 billion people living in extreme poverty (women constitute 70% of the poor worldwide). Forests provide global food security and resources, food, fodder, fuel and medicine. However, the way people use and manage forests depends on the socio-economic and socio-cultural environment, age and gender (FAO, 1989).

Forest ecosystems play an important role in the global carbon cycle. For example, reforestation and afforestation have both been integrated as forestry-based mitigation schemes into the international climate change regime (i.e. the Kyoto Protocol). Both practices entail converting non-forested land to forested land through planting, seeding and/or the promotion of seed banks and sources. Afforestation applies to areas that have not been forested for at least 50 years while reforestation applies to land that used to be forested but was turned over to another land use. Nowadays, there is a debate on the importance of addressing the reduction of emissions from deforestation and land degradation (REDD). Because it is estimated that close to one quarter of all greenhouse

gas emissions are due to deforestation and similar types of land degradation, effective

REDD strategies could be used to promote the protection of current forests.

Within the complexity of the services that forests provide for climate change mitigation, it is crucial to understand women’s role in these processes. Strategies are now turning to: understanding and taking into account the different benefits that women and men derive from forestry services; recognising gender differences in access to, control and knowledge of forest resources; and identifying the significant differences in access of women and men to forest-related decision making, institutions, and economic opportunities.

When half of the population is not included or is prevented from participating in decisions, institutions, and programmes relating to climate change mitigation, they are unlikely to feel “ownership” of forestry sector policies. Mitigation strategies represent a unique opportunity to include women in forestry programmes and acknowledge that gender relations will influence many aspects of forest management and governance proposed for reducing greenhouse gases.

Recommendations :-• International negotiations or regimes in

relation to REDD must ensure compliance with international and national commitments on gender equality and equity, including the Convention on the Elimination of All

Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).

• From the onset, ensure full participation and integration of women, from local and indigenous communities, in policy design processes (international and national) as well as in the broad-scale implementation of REDD.

• Forestry projects used to mitigate and adapt to climate change require a gender-based approach that captures the socially-defined differences between women and men, i.e. gender-based differences in roles and responsibilities, problems, needs and priorities, and knowledge of, and access to and control over forest and tree resources.

• Promote systematic attention to the participation of women in forestry development in policies, strategies and capacity-building efforts related to the conservation and sustainable development of forests and trees and their use.

• There should be equitable access to, and distribution of, the economic benefits derived from forest services provided to mitigate climate change. Programmes should also promote equal access of women to land ownership and other resources

necessary for effective socio-economic participation in forest management and climate mitigation strategies (e.g., land, capital, technical assistance, technology, tools, equipment, markets and time).

• Afforestation, reforestation, or forest preservation projects that receive payment for ecosystem services, such as carbon sequestration, should mainstream gender. Women should be included in the design and implementation of the projects, as well as in the distribution of benefits.

• Both women and men must be trained in methods to increase carbon

sequestration through new forestry technologies, including nursery techniques, site selection, and selection of species, land preparation, planting, weeding, and maintenance.

• Responses to global climate changes should avoid a narrow criterion that leads to environmentally and socially harmful consequences. These responses should have broad goals that aim to reduce climatic change, protect natural resources, improve social well-being, promote equality, and recognise that women are key agents in climate change processes.

REFRENCES:-

BOOKS WITH PAGE NO:-

1. AhlbŠck, AJ. 1997. Management planning of industrial plantations in Tanzania - principles andefforts. Paper to Topic 12, this Congress.2. Aminah, H. 1997. Planting stock production of Dipterocarps in Malaysia. Paper to Topic 12, thisCongress.

3. Andersen, RS and W Huber. 1988. The hour of the fox. Univ Washington Press, Seattle. 158 p.

4. ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

CLASS 8TH TO CLASS 10TH

SOCIAL SCIENCE –NCERT CLASS 9TH AND 10TH

SCIENCE –NCERT CLASS 9TH AND 10TH

SITES AND LECTURE NOTES OF RESEARCHERS:-

Amazon rainforest. (2003). Retrieved February 24, 2010, from http://www.blueplanetbiomes.org/amazon.htm

Butler, Rhett A.(2009).Afrotropical Realm:Enviornmental Profile. Retrieved 24 February 2010, from Mongabay.com / A Place Out of Time: Tropical Rainforests and the Perils They Face. website: http://rainforests.mongabay.com/0305.htm.

Frey, E. F. (2002). Tropical Deforestation in the Amazon: An Economic Analysis of Rondonia, Brazil. Issues in Political Economy, 11(1). Retrieved from http://org.elon.edu/ipe/Frey1.pdf

Hopwood, N., & Cohen, J. (n.d.). Greenhouse Gases and Society. Retrieved from http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/greenhouse.htm

Johnson, T. (2009, December 21). Deforestation and Greenhouse-Gas Emissions. Retrieved February 25, 2010, from Council on Foreign Relations website:http://www.cfr.org/publication/14919/deforestation_and_greenhousegas_emissions.html#p2

Rainforest Facts.(2009) Rain Tree. Retrieved February 25, 2010, from Raintree Nutrition, Inc. website: http://www.rain-tree.com/facts.htm