by Michael Smith
For far too long have woodlands and forests, especially many of the smaller, privately owned ones, been doing nothing and have not been bringing in the money that they, really, should be able to.
Too many small woods have been also left to their own devices, so to speak, simply because no money could be made, often for lack of understanding as to the marketing of woodland and forest products by their owners.
The problem with leaving woods and forest to their own devices, especially woods and forests in our developed countries is that they are not natural forests or ancient forests and woodlands. They have, more often than not, been planted to be used and often there are or have been coppice woodlands. Coppice that is not being worked for anything loner than but a decade or two is in danger of collapsing and disintegrating; meaning that there will, suddenly be nothing but fallen trees and root stocks that are broken apart. Our woods need to be worked and worked for profit as well, if possible. That does not mean that they have to be exploited.
This bring me to a little subject by way of digression: we will be on track again in a second... however, it is often claimed that is we use less paper we will have less trees and forests cut down. The fact is if we did not have the paper industry and the need for wood pulp many woods and forests that we have today in Europe, for instance, would not exist and many areas would not b e having trees at all.
I know that there are many amongst the environmental activists that think they know better and who claim that if woods and forests would be left to their own devices and if we did not use paper from trees our forests and woodlands would be better but this is not the case. In fact it is a lie and most of them know that too. Why they continue to perpetuate such falsehoods I cannot say but they do do that.
If it would not bee for some of the forest product industries we would have less woods and forests, of that we can be sure, and much more of the land that is currently in wood would be either used for this or that crop – today more than likely for bio-fuel crops – or even be built upon.
Wood is also a bio fuel; in fact the most natural of all bio-fuels. Wood has been used to keep us warm, cook our food, heat the metal in our forges, and so on and so on, for centuries, nay millenniums even, well before coal and oil, and it can save us yet again.
The burning of wood, for instance, releases only the amount of carbon dioxide that the tree has absorbed and converted during its lifetime and probably less even. With the right clean burning technology and all that wood can be more efficient today than coal and oil and wood could even be gasified and vehicles run on it. Then again vehicles be best run on the fuel that old Tin Lizzy Ford designed then to run on in the first place, namely methane gas. Yes, gas from sewerage, for instance. Same as the first electrical power plant was run on as well. But, alas, I once again digressed.
Wood has so many uses that it is amazing that so many woodland owners have no idea what resources they have and how to actually make them pay and enable them to increase their forests' productivity by ploughing back resources into it that came from the woods in the first place. Owning and managing a woodland or forest is a two-way affair and not just a one-way affair of taking only and not giving back and any good woodland owner is a husbandman, a steward of the land and will always plant anew and always replenish the trees.
Coppicing has been a system that has been in use in the British Isles – and other places where suitable trees are about and abound – for the managing of woodlands and forests and it is a system that keeps a woodland nigh on indefinitely productive.
Unfortunately much of the skills of proper coppicing is getting lost and in addition to that too many of the misguided environmentalists have been ranting and raving against the rotation coppice operations.
Proper professional woodland and forest management continuously improves those environments and ecosystems in a way that benefits everyone and everything, and it is such a shame that commercial forestry has such a bad image amongst the environmental lobby.
Without commercial forestry and commercially managed woodlands our planet would be far less green, regardless of what some, who, I am afraid to say, have no real knowledge of the subject b but think that they happen to know everything just because they have read this or that book, think and say, often way to vociferously.
While woodlands and forest might still exist in their ancient form had the hand of man not touched them, in most places of the world woods and forests have been worked my man for many thousand years if more more and here is virtually no forest that has not been worked.
The truth is that the management of woods and forests – and the word forests, by the way, means different things to different countries - is what has, in most cases, preserved woods and forests rather than the opposite, as is, so often, being claimed by the misguided ones in the environmental movement.
Without commercial forestry and woodland management for profit there would be none of those woods and forest in the prime condition that they are in presently. Commercial forestry, at least the true kind of commercial forestry not only extracts timer from the woods and forest; nay it also replants and that in a large scale.
Any professional forester knows that he does not work for the immediate gain and for the present or even a year or ten hence; he knows that he works for the future generations. Most foresters will never see the tree they they plant now or the ten year or so old trees they care for now to grow to maturity. This is for others in the future.
Without that kind of woodland and forest management, however, most woods and forests that there are today would not, as I said already, exist.
Urban forestry too can play a great role and here too the woods and forest could and indeed should be manageable for income. Whether or not then the income is wholly or partly used to replenish is another question but the income can be used to do so. Any forester in his or her right mind would also do just that.
Woods and forests are are source that can and must be managed for sustainable use in that the timber must be cut as when when ready – why else would such woods be managed otherwise. At the same time any such managed woods and forests, whether privately owned or publicly owned, in whichever way, need to have replanting schemes in operation at all times and also, as and where possible, should be expanded.
We need more woods and forests and that not only in the United Kingdom though the British Isles definitely need more woodlands. They are one of the less wooded countries in Europe.
Trees are the lungs of the planet and – while some have claimed otherwise – are what can keep the CO2 balanced to some degree.
So let's plant more trees and properly manage them, for the benefit of the planet as well as for income and, dare I mention it, profit. But then, some will say, he would say that seeing that he comes from the commercial forestry sector.
© M Smith (Veshengro), January 2009
<>
Showing posts with label forests. Show all posts
Showing posts with label forests. Show all posts
Forests back in fashion as weapon to combat climate change
by Michael Smith, RFA
The Earth's forests, which are perhaps one of the greatest, if not indeed the greatest, natural defenses against climate change, got somewhat of a boost recently with Britain's Prime Minister and a host of environmental lawyers throwing their support behind plans to protect them and eventually include the forestry sector in carbon markets.
Now who would have thought that the experts suddenly realize what we who have had dealings and have been working in forestry and related sectors for most of our lives have known all the time and those that set up managed forestry have known for centuries, namely that forests are good for the Earth.
A review commissioned by Gordon Brown and led by advisor Johan Eliasch has concluded that deforestation in countries heavily covered by rainforest could be halved in the next 12 years and the world's forestry sector could be carbon neutral – effectively sustainable in the long term – by 2030.
The review looks at the financial mechanisms needed to make this happen and comes down heavily in favour of wealthy industrialized nations offering funding to support forestry in poorer nations and somehow incorporating the carbon sink effect of existing forests into global carbon trading.
In a nutshell, the report says that countries that protect their forests should be rewarded for doing so by the international community.
The specific mechanisms recommended for doing this are slightly more complex.
Mr Eliasch said: “Saving forests is critical for tackling climate change. Without action on deforestation, avoiding the worst impacts of climate change will be next to impossible, and could lead to additional climate change damages of $1 trillion a year by 2100.
“Including the forest sector in a new global deal could reduce the costs of tackling climate change by up to 50% and therefore achieve deeper cuts in emissions, as well as reducing poverty in some of the world's poorest areas and protecting biodiversity.
“Deforestation will continue as long as cutting down and burning trees is more economic than preserving them. Access to finance from carbon markets and other funding initiatives will be essential for supporting forest nations to meet this challenge.”
I wonder whether readers remember that a while ago the papers and the media were full of suggestions that forests actually are bad for the environment. Don't ask me what those experts had been drinking but... Forests are more than carbon neutral; they are carbon sinks, and we need more of them and not just old forests. New planted and commercially managed forests and woodlands have been proven to be as useful as primal forests.
The review has been broadly welcomed in political circles, but environmental NGOs have given it a frostier reception.
Friends of the Earth climate campaigner Tom Picken said: “Allowing rich countries and businesses to 'offset' their carbon dioxide emissions by buying up huge tracts of forest is riddled with problems and will do little to tackle climate change.
“The industrialised world must rapidly cut its dependency on fossil fuels if we are to prevent catastrophic climate change from taking hold. The Eliasch plan will simply create a smokescreen allowing us to carry on polluting - it's the climate change equivalent of sub-prime mortgages.
“Forests and forest communities urgently require protection. Financial packages are needed - but we must also address the underlying causes of deforestation, such as biofuels, excessive meat consumption and industrial logging.”
We can but agree with the statements by the Friends of the Earth, though I also know that often FoE have a problem with commercial forestry per se and would like to see forests and woodlands remain unmanaged. This is not something that works and is not good for the forests and woodlands either, especially not with those, say, in Europe who have always been managed for the last millennia and if they would be no longer managed they would soon completely fall apart, literally. This is something that I have spoken about as regards to the coppice woodlands in the South of England, for instance.
The carbon offset idea, in my opinion, is a total stupidity anyway and we must get away from this notion that we can pay our way out of polluting the planet by paying, say, Brazil or such, to conserve their forests. I am sorry, but this notion is ludicrous. The developed world cannot be allowed to continue polluting just because they can buy carbon credits from the Third World. This is just not sustainable.
© M Smith (Veshengro), December 2008
<>
The Earth's forests, which are perhaps one of the greatest, if not indeed the greatest, natural defenses against climate change, got somewhat of a boost recently with Britain's Prime Minister and a host of environmental lawyers throwing their support behind plans to protect them and eventually include the forestry sector in carbon markets.
Now who would have thought that the experts suddenly realize what we who have had dealings and have been working in forestry and related sectors for most of our lives have known all the time and those that set up managed forestry have known for centuries, namely that forests are good for the Earth.
A review commissioned by Gordon Brown and led by advisor Johan Eliasch has concluded that deforestation in countries heavily covered by rainforest could be halved in the next 12 years and the world's forestry sector could be carbon neutral – effectively sustainable in the long term – by 2030.
The review looks at the financial mechanisms needed to make this happen and comes down heavily in favour of wealthy industrialized nations offering funding to support forestry in poorer nations and somehow incorporating the carbon sink effect of existing forests into global carbon trading.
In a nutshell, the report says that countries that protect their forests should be rewarded for doing so by the international community.
The specific mechanisms recommended for doing this are slightly more complex.
Mr Eliasch said: “Saving forests is critical for tackling climate change. Without action on deforestation, avoiding the worst impacts of climate change will be next to impossible, and could lead to additional climate change damages of $1 trillion a year by 2100.
“Including the forest sector in a new global deal could reduce the costs of tackling climate change by up to 50% and therefore achieve deeper cuts in emissions, as well as reducing poverty in some of the world's poorest areas and protecting biodiversity.
“Deforestation will continue as long as cutting down and burning trees is more economic than preserving them. Access to finance from carbon markets and other funding initiatives will be essential for supporting forest nations to meet this challenge.”
I wonder whether readers remember that a while ago the papers and the media were full of suggestions that forests actually are bad for the environment. Don't ask me what those experts had been drinking but... Forests are more than carbon neutral; they are carbon sinks, and we need more of them and not just old forests. New planted and commercially managed forests and woodlands have been proven to be as useful as primal forests.
The review has been broadly welcomed in political circles, but environmental NGOs have given it a frostier reception.
Friends of the Earth climate campaigner Tom Picken said: “Allowing rich countries and businesses to 'offset' their carbon dioxide emissions by buying up huge tracts of forest is riddled with problems and will do little to tackle climate change.
“The industrialised world must rapidly cut its dependency on fossil fuels if we are to prevent catastrophic climate change from taking hold. The Eliasch plan will simply create a smokescreen allowing us to carry on polluting - it's the climate change equivalent of sub-prime mortgages.
“Forests and forest communities urgently require protection. Financial packages are needed - but we must also address the underlying causes of deforestation, such as biofuels, excessive meat consumption and industrial logging.”
We can but agree with the statements by the Friends of the Earth, though I also know that often FoE have a problem with commercial forestry per se and would like to see forests and woodlands remain unmanaged. This is not something that works and is not good for the forests and woodlands either, especially not with those, say, in Europe who have always been managed for the last millennia and if they would be no longer managed they would soon completely fall apart, literally. This is something that I have spoken about as regards to the coppice woodlands in the South of England, for instance.
The carbon offset idea, in my opinion, is a total stupidity anyway and we must get away from this notion that we can pay our way out of polluting the planet by paying, say, Brazil or such, to conserve their forests. I am sorry, but this notion is ludicrous. The developed world cannot be allowed to continue polluting just because they can buy carbon credits from the Third World. This is just not sustainable.
© M Smith (Veshengro), December 2008
<>
Old Growth Forests and Ancient Woodlands
by Michael Smith (Veshengro), RFA
An old growth forest, ancient or primary forest or ancient woodland, is a woodland of great age that exhibits unique biological features. Depending on tree species and forest type, the age can be from 150 to 500 years.
Old growth forests typically contain a mixture of large live and dead trees or "snags", while unharvested fallen tree logs in various states of decay litter the forest floor.
Foresters and botanists use certain criteria to determine old growth forests. Sufficient age and minimal disturbance is necessary to be classified as old growth. The characteristics of old-growth forest include the presence of older trees, minimal signs of human disturbance, mixed-age stands, canopy openings due to tree falls, pit-and-mound topography, downed and decaying wood, standing snags, multi-layered canopies, intact soils, a healthy fungal ecosystem, and presence of indicator species.
Second growth forest are forests regenerated after harvests or severe disruptions like fire, storms or insects is often referred to as a second-growth forest or regeneration until a long enough period has passed that the effects of the disturbance are no longer evident. Depending on the forest, to become old growth again may take anywhere from a century to several millennia.
Old growths forests are extremely important as old growth forests are often rich communities of great biodiversity harboring wide varieties of plants and animals. These species must live under stable conditions free from severe disturbance. Some of these creatures are rare.
The age of the oldest trees in an ancient forest indicates that destructive events over a long period were of moderate intensity and did not kill all the vegetation. Some suggest that old growth forests are carbon "sinks" that lock up carbon and help prevent global warming.
As said earlier, the characteristics of old-growth forest include the presence of older trees, minimal signs of human disturbance and therefore in Britain and much of Europe there are no real “ancient woodlands” and this despite the fact that many misguided and ill-informed environmentalists claim that there are. The great majority of all those forests and woodlands have been touched by human hands and many until not so long ago. All the woodlands often referred to as thus are in fact old coppice woodlands that have been worked up until the 1950's and cannot every return by itself to Nature.
Only at the border between Poland and Belarus there is a more or less primeval forest containing the last herds of European bison. Further in the East then, behind the Urals, there it is possible to find real ancient forests and woodlands. All other European woods and forests have, however, at one time or the other, often well into the not so distant future, been worked by man for human benefit.
The previously mentioned coppice woodlands of Southern England, for instance, if left to “return to Nature”, as is being demanded by those environmentalists that have no knowledge of forestry, will simply fall apart. Without man's intervention the thousand to fifteen hundred year old coppice stools will simple break apart and that will be the end then of those woods.
For this very reason, e.g. the fact that unless those coppice woodlands will break apart – literally – if not worked in the next couple of years again by woodsmen and underwoodsmen. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that the use of those woodlands as productive woodlands would be re-initiated. Now would be a good time to start. The coppice stools will otherwise, if not coppiced again in the next couple of years, literally break apart and that will be the end of the trees and of the woodlands.
While it is often thought that ONLY old growth forests are carbon "sinks" that lock up carbon and help prevent global warming but in a way all forests, ancient and more modern, contribute towards the prevention of climate change. The term “global warming” is rather misleading nowadays as the warming, in fact, stopped about seven years ago and plateaued out and has remained at the same level ever since. Climate will, nevertheless, still change until the temperatures will fall again, as they have always been doing in this cyclic changes the Earth seems to be going through every 1000 or so years.
© M Smith (Veshengro), July 2008
An old growth forest, ancient or primary forest or ancient woodland, is a woodland of great age that exhibits unique biological features. Depending on tree species and forest type, the age can be from 150 to 500 years.
Old growth forests typically contain a mixture of large live and dead trees or "snags", while unharvested fallen tree logs in various states of decay litter the forest floor.
Foresters and botanists use certain criteria to determine old growth forests. Sufficient age and minimal disturbance is necessary to be classified as old growth. The characteristics of old-growth forest include the presence of older trees, minimal signs of human disturbance, mixed-age stands, canopy openings due to tree falls, pit-and-mound topography, downed and decaying wood, standing snags, multi-layered canopies, intact soils, a healthy fungal ecosystem, and presence of indicator species.
Second growth forest are forests regenerated after harvests or severe disruptions like fire, storms or insects is often referred to as a second-growth forest or regeneration until a long enough period has passed that the effects of the disturbance are no longer evident. Depending on the forest, to become old growth again may take anywhere from a century to several millennia.
Old growths forests are extremely important as old growth forests are often rich communities of great biodiversity harboring wide varieties of plants and animals. These species must live under stable conditions free from severe disturbance. Some of these creatures are rare.
The age of the oldest trees in an ancient forest indicates that destructive events over a long period were of moderate intensity and did not kill all the vegetation. Some suggest that old growth forests are carbon "sinks" that lock up carbon and help prevent global warming.
As said earlier, the characteristics of old-growth forest include the presence of older trees, minimal signs of human disturbance and therefore in Britain and much of Europe there are no real “ancient woodlands” and this despite the fact that many misguided and ill-informed environmentalists claim that there are. The great majority of all those forests and woodlands have been touched by human hands and many until not so long ago. All the woodlands often referred to as thus are in fact old coppice woodlands that have been worked up until the 1950's and cannot every return by itself to Nature.
Only at the border between Poland and Belarus there is a more or less primeval forest containing the last herds of European bison. Further in the East then, behind the Urals, there it is possible to find real ancient forests and woodlands. All other European woods and forests have, however, at one time or the other, often well into the not so distant future, been worked by man for human benefit.
The previously mentioned coppice woodlands of Southern England, for instance, if left to “return to Nature”, as is being demanded by those environmentalists that have no knowledge of forestry, will simply fall apart. Without man's intervention the thousand to fifteen hundred year old coppice stools will simple break apart and that will be the end then of those woods.
For this very reason, e.g. the fact that unless those coppice woodlands will break apart – literally – if not worked in the next couple of years again by woodsmen and underwoodsmen. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that the use of those woodlands as productive woodlands would be re-initiated. Now would be a good time to start. The coppice stools will otherwise, if not coppiced again in the next couple of years, literally break apart and that will be the end of the trees and of the woodlands.
While it is often thought that ONLY old growth forests are carbon "sinks" that lock up carbon and help prevent global warming but in a way all forests, ancient and more modern, contribute towards the prevention of climate change. The term “global warming” is rather misleading nowadays as the warming, in fact, stopped about seven years ago and plateaued out and has remained at the same level ever since. Climate will, nevertheless, still change until the temperatures will fall again, as they have always been doing in this cyclic changes the Earth seems to be going through every 1000 or so years.
© M Smith (Veshengro), July 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
