Tag: conservation

  • Home
  • Wood fuel not as bad for the environment as previously thought

Wood fuel not as bad for the environment as previously thought
Posted by

FTA communications
Photo: Lucy McHugh/CIFOR
Locals burn wood in preparation for honey harvesting in Kapuas Hulu, Kalimantan. Lucy McHugh/CIFOR

By Jack Hewson, originally published at CIFOR’s Forests News

Felling trees for firewood is an eons-old practice that in recent history has come under criticism by conservationists. But according to new research conducted by the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), the true environmental impact of wood fuel needs to be better understood before sustainability policies can be properly formulated.

“The sweeping conclusion that wood fuel is a chief cause of deforestation, needs to be revisited as the situation is more complex  than that,” said ICRAF scientist Phosiso Sola, who participated in the research.

Globally, the use of wood fuel is of huge socioeconomic significance, with more than two billion people reliant on it for energy, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). In Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) alone, more than 70 percent of the population relies on wood fuel to cook and to heat their homes.

But use of this resource comes with sizable environmental and health costs.

The harvesting of wood fuel in SSA is said to result in deforestation and its use as a source of energy is responsible for much of the region’s household greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, indoor pollution from inefficient stoves and poorly ventilated kitchens is believed to be a major cause of respiratory disease.

However, despite these concerns, Sola and colleagues’ research has underscored that the usage of wood fuel is just one of many interrelated drivers causing environmental damage.

After dissecting 131 previous studies, their research concluded that contextual factors in the studies challenge the perception that deforestation is largely attributed to bush fires, overgrazing and woodcutting in addition to wood fuel.

“In fact, there are suggestions that agricultural expansion is a much bigger factor, although intricately associated with the subsequent sale of wood fuel resultant thereof,” Sola said.

One objective of the research has been to undertake a systematic map that takes socioeconomic, health and environmental impacts of wood fuel value chains across SSA. But according to Sola, more analysis is needed to reveal the true picture of the impact of wood fuel.

“We’re saying that the studies that have been published so far have not been adequate to inform policy,” she said.

“You find that most of the papers are either looking at the environmental factors and making broad conclusions from that, or the health factors where wood fuel is causing lots of respiratory disorders, and then there are those who are focusing on the economic aspects. But you don’t have studies that try to look at all of these issues together and, most importantly, at the trade-offs among them.”

“And that is what is required — so we are recommending broader and more robust research that actually takes all of these issues into account simultaneously. Equally important is the reliability of evidence generated – robust research that improves attribution of changes to wood fuel use.”

Evidence-based forestry

The process of systematic review of existing studies is part of a bigger push within the forestry conservation sector to embrace an approach that has its origins in medical science.

In the 1970s, a Scottish doctor named Archie Cochrane published a paper that criticized the lack of controlled trials underpinning the usage of medical practices that had been assumed to be effective.

His work led to the founding of the Cochrane Library — a collection of systematic reviews of medical studies — and other projects that established what became known as the “evidence-based approach”.

Four decades later, “evidence-based forestry” is the latest cross-sectoral synthesis of this method, seeking to bolster the foundations of environmental science, and the sustainability policy implications.

Read alsoSocial forestry and climate change in Southeast Asia: CIFOR research findings and goals

According to Paolo Cerutti, co-author of the research, it is best understood as a form of “myth-busting”.

“Over several decades, a lot has been written on the environmental ‘crisis’ that the small-scale usage of the forest for energy was causing,” he said. “While that carries impact, in many areas it was probably a lot more sustainable than initially thought.”

“Of course, the key point is that there needs to be evidence to back these theories up.”

In partnership with the United Kingdom Department for International Development (DFID), CIFOR has commissioned a number of systematic reviews as part of its Evidence-Based Forestry Initiative, including Cerutti and Sola’s research on wood fuel.

The multi-dimensional nature of evidence-based forestry — one that looks simultaneously at socio-economic, health and environmental factors — compliments the practices of “social forestry”; whereby the engagement of those who depend on the forest for their livelihoods is preferred over uniform prohibition on harvesting wood for energy, or logging, or other damaging practices.

“In this regard, we are now seeing a holistic reappraisal of what is deemed sustainable,” said Cerutti.

For more information on this topic, please contact Paolo Cerutti at p.cerutti@cgiar.org.
This research forms part of the CGIAR Research Program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry.
This research was supported by DFID KNOWFOR.

Latest post

  • Home
  • Beyond protected areas: Landscape approaches to reconcile conservation and development

Beyond protected areas: Landscape approaches to reconcile conservation and development

04 November, 2016
Posted by

cifor

Latest post

  • Home
  • FTA event coverage: How can we use trees and conserve them, too?

FTA event coverage: How can we use trees and conserve them, too?
Posted by

FTA
prunus-africana
Prunus Africana bark harvest can kill the trees if not done properly. Credit: T. Geburek

Laura K Snook, Bioversity International, writes about the challenges and opportunities for rural populations in continuing to use the trees they depend on for food and other products while conserving them, too.

Can rural populations in developing countries continue to use the trees they depend on while conserving them, too? As human populations grow in rural areas of the tropics, the populations of wild trees that provide them with food, fuel, medicines and construction materials are diminishing due to overharvesting and forest and woodland degradation and loss. These declines are closing off future options for sustaining or domesticating these valuable resources.

The challenges and opportunities for making conservation compatible with use were showcased at a workshop sponsored by Bioversity International during Tropentag 2016: Solidarity in a competing world — fair use of resources in Vienna, Austria.

The well-attended event explored approaches, tools and arrangements that could promote both conservation of trees and forests and their better use. Four research projects in Africa and Latin America were highlighted, led by Bioversity International and funded by Austrian Development Cooperation and the CGIAR Research Program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry.

The event, described as a ’highlight‘ of Tropentag, explored approaches, tools and arrangements that could promote both conservation of trees and forests and their better use.

Laura Snook, Leader, Forest Genetic Resources Programme, Bioversity International, gave a keynote address, which was followed by four short presentations from panelists and discussions moderated by Judy Loo of Bioversity International.

Thomas Geburek
Thomas Geburek: Photo: Tropentag

Thomas Geburek of the Austrian Research Center for Forests shared innovative approaches for prioritizing which tree populations to conserve across Sub-Saharan Africa.

Presenting research on African cherry (Prunus Africana), which is threatened due to demand for its medicinal bark, he showed how genetic information and climate change modeling revealed which stands of trees, across multiple countries, should be prioritized, both because they conserved the most unique or diverse populations and because the sites would not become inhospitable for this montane species as a result of projected climate change.

Barbara Vinceti, of Bioversity International, noted how local preferences and understanding of rules for access to trees as well as changing land uses affected options for conserving and enhancing use of the important food tree, Parkia biglobosa, in Burkina Faso.

Dietmar Stoian of Bioversity presented insights into the enabling conditions for community forestry that both conserved forests and CITES-listed mahogany trees (Swietenia macrophylla). In the Maya Biosphere of Guatemala, harvesting and processing timber provides income sufficient to pull participants out of poverty. He contrasted this situation with the constraints that inhibit the development of community forestry in Nicaragua.

Timber harvesting, processing and sale in Guatemala has conserved the forest and mahogany trees of the Maya Biosphere Reserve. Credit: Bioversity International/L. Snook
Timber harvesting, processing and sale in Guatemala has conserved the forest and mahogany trees of the Maya Biosphere Reserve. Credit: Bioversity International/L. Snook

Camila Sousa of IIAM, Mozambique described how relearning traditional harvesting techniques based on the use of repellent plants and tree climbing, in lieu of setting fires and felling hive trees, made wild honey harvesting compatible with conservation in the Niassa Reserve of Mozambique. In contrast, uncontrolled logging had left too few standing trees of commercial species to provide a resource base for the kind of community forestry that has so successfully sustained forests, trees and livelihoods in Guatemala.

A lively discussion ensued among the academics, students, development agency professionals and donors from around the world who attended the event, about ways research could effectively support development.

A synthesis at the end of the event drew out several key points.

1) One was that different kinds of science are complementary: modern genetic tools do not replace, but complement provenance trials and other traditional approaches to biodiversity research. We need to understand the limitations of what we can learn from different research approaches.

For example, while some kinds of genetic variation can be seen (larger or sweeter fruit or faster growth), genetic diversity is invisible; laboratory analysis is needed to be able to set conservation priorities that will ensure that this diversity and its associated adaptive capacity is safeguarded.

Similarly, in landscapes managed by farmers who select and protect certain individuals for their traits, they steer evolution; while this leads to better or more desirable yields, it also reduces diversity. Conservation needs to focus on retaining diversity and reproductive processes to allow for continuing genetic recombination so that trees, which may live for centuries or even thousands of years, can adapt to change throughout their lifetimes, as well as passing on sufficient diversity to their offspring to allow future generations to thrive.

The participants discussed if rural populations in developing countries can continue to use the trees they depend on while conserving them, too. Photo: Tropentag
The participants discussed if rural populations in developing countries can continue to use the trees they depend on while conserving them, too. Photo: Tropentag

2) Another key point was that people are central to both conservation and use. It is crucial to involve them and understand their benefits and incentives to promote the kinds of practices and policies that are needed to make conservation and use compatible.

Using participatory research methods allows local people to learn from researchers and share their own knowledge. This empowers everyone to recognize or develop management choices that benefit both people and their resource base.

Several participants described the benefits of developing monitoring tools that local people could use to evaluate the impacts of their management practices. Another point raised was the value and importance of donors’ contributions, both in supporting research and in creating opportunities for “learning by doing”, such as implementing community forestry or supporting second tier organizations that can in turn support communities.

These transformations take time – support may be needed for decades, not just the three year term of a typical research project. Follow up is needed to ensure that research results reach their full potential through adoption of recommendations and changes in policy.

For more information, please contact l.snook@cgiar.org

This research is also funded by the Austrian Development Cooperation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Latest post

  • Home
  • Conservation by another name: Traditions, taboos and hunting

Conservation by another name: Traditions, taboos and hunting
Posted by

FTA communications
Photo: Marco Simola/CIFOR
Spiritual beliefs affect how people behave in the forests in the Amazon. Marco Simola/CIFOR

By Barbara Fraser, originally published at CIFOR’s Forests News

When Sara Armas Díaz goes hunting, she pauses before entering the woods and pays her respects to the forest spirits.

“I carry a lighted branch and say the name of the animal I want, and within a short time, I see it,” says Armas, 51, a Cocama grandmother who learned the ritual from her grandparents when they took her hunting for the first time at age 10.

In communities along the Loretoyacu River in the Ticoya Reserve or resguardo, a territory shared by Ticuna, Cocama and Yagua indigenous people, many hunters have stories of encounters with forest spirits that help them find game or keep them from hunting in a certain place.

Those encounters, combined with practices related to preparing the meat for meals, are traditional ways of controlling hunting in the territory, according to researchers from the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).

SACRED PLACES

The researchers are studying the hunting, use and commercialization of bushmeat in the area around the reserve, on the Amazon River where the borders of Colombia, Peru and Brazil converge.

“The hunters never mention the word ‘conservation,’ but what they are doing is conservation related,” said Nathalie Van Vliet, a senior researcher with CIFOR, who leads the research team.

“They also have practices related to reducing health risks—for example, kids should not eat a certain part of a particular animal,” she said. “They don’t call them health regulations, but by regulating consumption of the meat, they also contribute to conservation.”

Different hunters recount different—and sometimes conflicting—beliefs, but collectively, they constitute a control on hunting.

When certain plants are flowering or bearing fruit, the meat of animals that feed on them has an unpleasant flavor and can cause nausea, diarrhea or rashes, Armas said. She and her husband, Gabriel Murayari Pinedo, 63, avoid hunting those animals in places where they see those plants. Hunters avoid other places for other reasons.

“There are places where you can’t hunt,” said Milton Pinto, 22, a Ticuna who, like Armas and Murayari, lives in Puerto Nariño, a town of about 7,000 people in the Ticoya Reserve.

 One is a certain salt lick—a place where animals tend to congregate, which makes them easy prey.

“It’s a sacred place,” Pinto said. “You have to respect it.”

NATURAL CONTROLS

Hunters offer various accounts of that salt lick and others—as places where hunting is permitted, but hunters can only take what they need, or as places that keep hunters at bay, with thunder, lightning and rain if a hunter gets too close.

“The place has a madre, a spirit,” Pinto said.

In surveys of community members, including hunters, traders and restaurant operators, the researchers found that more than two-thirds of the beliefs that limited the hunting or use of wild game were related to consumption. Eating the meat of a tapir, for example, could cause a pregnant woman to miscarry. Women also should not look at or touch the turtle known as a matamata, the researchers learned.

The largest number of “taboos” about meat consumption involved the jaguar, a top predator that also has spiritual significance to many Amazonian people. Other animals regulated by traditional beliefs included tapirs and snakes.

The largest number of beliefs related to the way meat is handled involved turtles—for example, touching the blood of a turtle while preparing the meat is said to produce warts.  Only 10 percent of the people surveyed said that ignoring such traditional beliefs would have no negative effect. More than half said failure to respect taboos could cause illness, while others said it could result in a decrease in the number of animals or make hunters unlucky in their search for wild game.

Fishermen respect similar practices, Pinto said. One lake in the reserve is known to fishermen as a dangerous place, home to huge river otters, jaguars and giant caimans.

“You have to fish silently,” said Pinto, adding that some parts of the lake were off limits.

When Pinto was younger, an elderly fisherman showed him which parts of the lake were safe for fishing and which should be left alone.

“It’s a kind of natural control,” he said.

This research forms part of the CGIAR Research Program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry.
This research was supported by USAID.

Latest post

  • Home
  • Could timber plantations boost forest conservation?

Could timber plantations boost forest conservation?

Logging - here Kalimantan, Indonesia, - is not normally associated with forest conservation. Photo: Achmad Ibrahim/CIFOR
Posted by

FTA

By Romain Pirard, originally published at CIFOR’s Forests News

Logging - here Kalimantan, Indonesia, - is not normally associated with forest conservation. Photo: Achmad Ibrahim/CIFOR
Logging – here Kalimantan, Indonesia, – is not normally associated with forest conservation. Photo: Achmad Ibrahim/CIFOR

Large-scale mono-culture plantations have been criticized for a bevy of reasons: land grabbing, forest destruction, poor environmental services, unfair distribution of benefits, and the list goes on.

So it might sound counter-intuitive, and even provocative, to suggest timber plantations as a prime solution to promote forest conservation. Yet this forms the basis of a theory derived during the early 20th century, which this article will refer to as the ‘plantation conservation benefit’ theory. It stipulates that generating value out of wood production is actually an effective way to protect a given tract of forest.

To examine this theory, let’s go back to its origin. The starting point sounds reasonable enough: by planting trees at scale to be managed intensively in order to achieve higher productivity, one can produce enough timber to spare the remaining natural forests. In other words, one can substitute wood derived from the forests with wood produced from the timber plantations.

To further test this theory, we reviewed evidence in a recently published study.

A first observation is that although not much research has been completed – or at least published – a wealth of information exists. This is primarily because the research draws upon an amazing diversity of methods. Each of these methods allows scientists to look at different angles of the question, which appears to be as complex as it seems straightforward.

These methods include pure descriptive statistics that illustrate long-term trends. For instance, research shows that wood production from natural forests actually peaked in 1989 and plantations are filling the gap.

The author thinks it is worth exploring if plantations could help with conservation. Photo: Murdani Usman/CIFOR
The author thinks it is worth exploring if plantations could help with conservation. Photo: Murdani Usman/CIFOR

Another research method uses theoretical modeling, which highlights the risk of displacement effects. For instance, establishing a timber plantation in one area could displace agriculture to another forested area, which is not easy to track, but definitely determines the ultimate impacts of plantations.

Yet another way to approach the issue is by using econometric models. These lead to other possible scenarios. For instance, efficient and productive management of expanding plantations could result in the oversupply and enhanced demand of timber, as consumers react to lower market prices. The danger here is creating new demand for wood. After all, why wouldn’t someone want to replace his or her plastic chairs with fancy wooden ones if timber was rendered more affordable?

MORE TIMBER, MORE TREES

So what can we learn from this diversity of approaches and studies, apart from fancy theories and anecdotal evidence?

Although the evidence is not entirely straightforward, there is some convergence in findings. Most importantly, it seems that the assumption holds to some extent, however disturbing that might sound to those who oppose the expansion of tree plantations for their alleged (and at times, proven) flaws.

This is not to say that the ‘plantation conservation benefit’ theory is entirely rosy, but overall, it can be inferred from the research that an increased supply of wood plantations tends to reduce pressure on natural forests.

We should insist on this last point and further clarify: more plantations might indeed alleviate the pressure on natural forests by sharing the burden of production, but this refers to wood extraction only.

Danum Valley, Indonesia, is a primary rainforest and rich in biodiversity. Photo Mokhamad Edliadi/CIFOR
Danum Valley, Indonesia, is a primary rainforest and rich in biodiversity. Photo Mokhamad Edliadi/CIFOR

What does this mean? It means that less timber production from natural forests, hence less degradation, also means less value (both recognized and marketed) for standing forests.

This is a critical aspect to highlight. When natural forests are not used for wood extraction – which can be done in sustainable ways like using reduced impact-logging techniques – they may actually be more vulnerable to clear-cutting.

Generating value out of wood production may indeed become the most effective way to protect a tract of forest. In contrast, using forests solely for environmental services might not be enough to shield it against other land uses, particularly agriculture. So the trick here is not to remove one problem, only to create a bigger one.

SUCCESS FACTORS

This suggests that a number of parameters will have to be carefully considered before designing programs to develop plantations that will also promote conservation. Obviously, plantations should not be established on already forested areas (even though they can be much more productive per hectare, from just a few m3 up to 20-40 m3/ha), or on areas where restoration could be given priority.

Additionally, wood extraction in natural forest ecosystems cannot be dismissed on principle. Not only do forests provide high-quality wood products that plantations might not be able to yield (requiring super long rotations lasting dozens of years, if not centuries), but it can also be done in fairly sustainable ways (yet premiums for such sustainable techniques might not be high enough to encourage large-scale adoption).

Conservation through national parks should not be the only solution. Gunung Halimun-Salak National Park, Java, Indonesia. Photo: Mokhamad Edliadi/CIFOR
Conservation through national parks should not be the only solution. Gunung Halimun-Salak National Park, Java, Indonesia. Photo: Mokhamad Edliadi/CIFOR

Although providing value to forests via sustainable timber production would encourage policymakers to preserve them in the face of mounting pressure from agriculture, economic reasons alone aren’t enough. Law enforcement is another necessary condition for the ‘plantation conservation benefit’ to materialize. Regardless of the amount of timber supplies produced from plantations, natural forests will unfortunately always be tempting to access for production given that their stocks are ready for use.

Admittedly, with so many policies and conditions to be met in order for the ‘plantation conservation benefit’ to materialize, one may wonder if it is more theoretical than operational.

And the fact that plantations seem to be taking over, as is very clearly suggested by numbers showing substitution of production from forests to plantations, could conceal an ugly truth: this transition might actually be the consequence of declining production potential in natural forests.

Bear with me, as this is more than simply subtle nuance. If plantations are only responding to necessity with decreasing wood production potential in natural forests, and are filling the gap between supply and demand, then they should not be ascribed the responsibility for conservation resulting from the shift.

This matters because the benefits of plantation expansion might then only be for consumers enjoying sustained volumes of wood available on the market, and not for the sake of conserving tropical forests.

Yet for all of the weaknesses of the ‘plantation conservation benefit’ theory, and based on published evidence, one cannot deny that there is some truth in it. This is an encouragement to continue to design plantation programs that pay a great deal of attention to the mitigation of negative impacts, as well as investing in parallel programs to sustainably manage or protect remaining natural forests.

After all, the expansion of timber plantations could prove to be a necessary condition (albeit insufficient if applied in isolation) to promote the conservation and the survival of natural forests.

Latest post


Back to top

Sign up to our monthly newsletter

Connect with us