|
There is no sharp divide in total wood consumption between poor and rich nations, largely because poor nations have a large demand for wood as fuel. The worlds leading per-capita consumers of timber (all using more than three times the global average) include nations at all levels of economic development: Liberia and Zambia; Malaysia and Costa Rica; Sweden and the United States of America. By continent, Africa is the second largest per-capita consumer of wood, after North America2. But the way wood is used varies dramatically with levels of economic
development. Worldwide, half of consumption is for fuel, but in developing
countries this figure rises to 80 Among industrialized nations, the predominant use of wood is as industrial roundwood, a category that encompasses building material, paper and packaging. Each citizen of the United States uses 15 times as much wood for this purpose as an average citizen of a developing country. Over half the timber harvested for industrial use goes to North America, Europe and Japan, a figure that rises to 70 percent for paper. Global paper use has grown sixfold since 1950, using a fifth of all the wood harvested4. With the exception of China and Brazil two very large wood-producing
nations most The focus of industrial roundwood production is moving towards harvesting
from plantations. Between 1980 and 1995, the extent of plantations doubled
to 180 million hectares, an area the size of Mexico6.
They offer the potential for high yields of fast-growing species on small
areas of land, off-setting the cost of planting, and offering a viable
source of timber where accessible natural forests are in increasingly
short supply7.
Previously a feature largely of industrialized countries, plantations
are now being cultivated in developing countries, with most of them planning
to double their plantations by 20108.
Plantations take some of the stress off natural forests, but only for as long as natural forests are not logged to make way for them. There is increasing evidence that they do not confer the same ecological benefits. For example, they do not provide the same protection against soil erosion and flooding9 and they are more vulnerable to fires. They are normally monocultures with a seriously impoverished biological diversity, and offer virtually none of the non-timber forest products of the kind that sustain many local economies and cultures. Non-timber forest products include fruits and nuts, rattan, medicinal
plants and bushmeat. Many people living in or near tropical rainforests
rely for half or more of their protein on wild Because many non-timber forest products are used within the forests or traded informally, their value to national and community economies is frequently underestimated by governments when considering the economic potential of natural forests relative to other land uses. One exception was the formation of extractive reserves in the Brazilian Amazon in the late 1980s, dedicated to Brazil nut harvesting, rubber tapping and other non-destructive uses of the forest. But just as timber can be overharvested, so can these non-timber resources,
especially when local products gain access to large urban markets. The
African bushmeat industry, which has become an international business,
may exceed a million tons a year. Such levels of exploitation are unsustainable
and can damage the forest ecology, since the same animals often disperse
seeds11.
In an effort to promote more sustainable management of
natural forests, environmental groups and foresters around the world have
banded together to certify and label for customers timber and other products
that come from well-managed forests. The largest of these consortiums
is the Forest Stewardship Council, which by 1999 had issued certificates
approving over 15 million hectares of forest worldwide. Many major retail
groups in Europe and North America have pledged to purchase timber products
only from such supplies. Governments are also increasingly attempting to realize value from their forests by charging access fees to ecotourists, hunters, or scientists seeking plant-based pharmaceuticals.
|
|
|||||||||
|
Copyright AAAS 2000. |