A Sustainability Assessment of Deforestation in North America: Aiming for Sustainable Economic, Social and Ecological Forest Use
Abstract
The sustainability assessment of deforestation North America evaluated the most viable alternative geared towards the achievement of sustainable forest use and preservation. A decision-making criterion was developed to measure the feasibility of these alternatives of prohibiting forest use, reforestation and agro-forestry. The criteria consisted of three benchmarks: social equity, economic viability and ecological soundness. The evaluation process was seven-fold and recommended agro-forestry as the most feasible approach to achieving its objectives.
Introduction
This report highlights the findings of a sustainability assessment of the current rate of deforestation in North America. Chakravarty et al. defines deforestation as the modification of previously forested land into a ‘permanently non-forested land’ (2012). Sustainability means improving human welfare within the limitations of the global environment without compromising the wellbeing of other people or future generations (Mensah & Castro, 2004). There are three main pillars of sustainability: economic, social and environmental. Thus, this sustainability assessment analyzes the simultaneous interaction of these three components in determining the most feasible approach to achieve sustainable forest use.
This Sustainability Assessment assesses the alternative approaches that local governments and communities in North America can initiate to achieve sustainable forest use and preservation for future generations.
Step two - Desired outcome
The objective of this sustainability assessment is to recommend the most feasible means of achieving sustainable forest use and preservation by analyzing the pillars of sustainability concurrently rather than individually. Social equity includes poverty alleviation, empowerment, and intergenerational equity. The latter refers to fairness between the current and future generations with regards to the use of natural resources (Goodland, 1995). The deforestation rate in North America compromises the opportunity for future generations to benefit from forest products. Economic sustainability refers to the efficiency in resource use. The indiscriminate felling of trees will result in the loss of future income streams and employment. Environmental sustainability is the preservation of biodiversity and natural resources. Deforestation in North America has created biodiversity and habitat loss, and increased carbon dioxide in the air.
Thus, this assessment seeks to determine the most suitable approach that balances the social, economic and environmental aspects. No pillar is more important than others because they all have significant effects on both the environment and human welfare. Thus, trade off may be made to a narrow coverage that ensures zero compromise on the role of any one pillar.
Step three - Sustainability decision-making protocol
The sustainability decision-making protocol provides the steps for evaluating the social, economic and ecological viability of alternative solutions in combating deforestation. The decision-making criteria provide the qualitative benchmarks for measuring each alternative. The acceptability criteria provide the minimum threshold that the alternatives must satisfy in order to be feasible. Finally, targets are quantitative outputs required of each alternative. Table 1shows these three aspects of evaluation.
Step four - Alternatives
This report analyzes three alternative solutions to mitigating deforestation: use of forest prohibition, reforestation and agroforestry. Prohibiting forest use means curtailing all forms of deforestation activities. This method results into a significant reduction of human activities within forests, thus preserves biodiversity and environmental degradation. This decrease stems from effective monitoring of forest reserves using modern technology and employing additional security personnel to lock out intruders.
Reforestation involves planting of trees in areas where forests had been cut down. It requires site identification, analysis and preparation in the initial stages, which increase implementation costs (EPA, 2012). The success of reforestation majorly depends on the goodwill of the local communities such in areas where it is to take place. Its benefits include preservation of biodiversity, carbon sequestration and recreational services.
Agroforestry refers to the deliberate integration of trees into crops farming systems (USDA, 2013). The factors that necessitated agroforestry include declining income streams, increased deforestation, gradual land degradation and increased land scarcity (FAO, 2005). Examples of benefits from agroforestry include provision of fodder, timber and fuel, soil fertility and carbon sequestration.
Step five - Evaluation of alternatives
Forest use prohibition is not socially viable because it does not involve the participation and support of the local community. In addition, it bans all forms of human activities, hindering the people’s use of recreational amenities provided by forests such as sports fishing, hiking and hunting. Consequently, illegal forest activities may increase as people seek ways to access the forests. Reforestation promotes community participation, thus, receiving goodwill from local communities. However, it may be less viable if it results in the displacement of people without providing alternative lands for settlement, or provides areas that are non-productive (Nabuurs et al., 2007). In addition, recreational activities will be halted to allow for the growth of new tree seedlings. Agroforestry encompasses all forms of social equity by soliciting community participation, offering regulated access to recreational activities and does not result in displacement of people.
All three options include economic costs that may hinder their successful implementation. Forest use prohibition requires forest management agencies to use hi-tech technology and equipment to carry out constant surveillance of forests (Chakravarty et al., 2012). These tools are expensive to purchase and maintain. Furthermore, forest management companies must employ skilled technicians to run the equipment and additional groundsmen for patrol purposes. In addition, this approach does not provide alternative sources of forest products, thus, may lower the welfare of the people whose income primarily comes from trade on forest products. Reforestation costs stem from expert analysis of soils suitability, plant species compatibility with the selected site, site preparation and labor costs (EPA, 2012). Similar to the prohibition, reforestation does not provide alternative income streams to the local communities. Of the three alternatives, agroforestry is the most economically viable option because it minimizes costs by providing subsidized or free tree seedlings for the farmers to plant. In addition, it offers alternative sources of tree products, resulting in reduced infringement on forests.
Forest use prohibition significantly reduces human activities within forests in the long-term thus preserving the natural habitats of both plant and animal species. However, its ecological viability in the short-term may be compromised by increased illegal access to forests by neighboring communities. Reforestation may result in increased carbon dioxide emission in the short-term such as exhaust emissions from tractors used in preparing the land. In addition, reforestation may compromise biodiversity if it involves creating ‘mono-specific plantations’ containing only a single tree species (Nabuurs et al., 2007). Agroforestry limits human activities in the forests by providing an alternative source of tree products from people’s lands. This reduced human activity in forests will eventually restore biodiversity as more species return to their habitats. Global statistics indicates that human activities contribute to 6-7 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide annually (EPA, 2012). The additional trees planted as a result of agroforestry will speed up the sequestration of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Step six - Preferred alternative
Agroforestry is the most sustainable way of mitigating deforestation. It promotes community participation without compromising people’s use of recreational facilities nor displacing them from their lands. It can be implemented at minimum costs to the local people while providing alternative sources of forest products. Small-scale farmers can, thus, earn income by selling the tree products from their lands and accrue benefits all year round since different trees mature at different times. Furthermore, people reduce their exploitation of forest products, thus, allowing for restoration and preservation of natural habitats. Other environmental benefits of agroforestry include wind breaking, carbon sequestration, improving soil fertility by through the addition of biomass and providing fodder to domestic animals. Therefore, agroforestry meets the social, economic and ecological benchmarks set in the decision-making protocol.
Step seven - Mitigation and management
- Offering information and training on agroforestry to local farmers
- Linking local farmers to markets through entrepreneurship training
- Government support in terms of financial credit, inputs and technical assistance
Recommendations
I recommend agroforestry as the most sustainable solution for curbing deforestation because it offers social, economic and ecological benefits. In addition, it preserves both intra-generational and intergenerational equity. Intra-generational equity results from the empowerment of small-scale farmers to embrace agroforestry, which gives them long-term income streams. Thus, poverty alleviation becomes a reality. Intergenerational equity stems from the preservation of biodiversity and forests products to enable future generations to meet their needs. However, supportive measures such as education, training and financial credit are critical in streamlining the adoption of agroforestry
Conclusion
Deforestation is a human activity that should be mitigated at all costs. Forests play a fundamental role in the survival of man by providing sources of income such timber, and creating an environment that supports other living organisms. However, the exploitation of forests should be carried out sustainably with the wellbeing of future generations in mind. Several methods such as reforestation, agroforestry and zero deforestations can significantly reduce deforestation if well implemented. The practicality of these solutions should, however, meet the social, economic and ecological pillars of sustainability for them to be feasible.
References
Chakravarty, S., Ghosh, S. K., Suresh, C. P., Dey, A. N., & Shukla, G. (2012). Deforestation: Causes, Effects and Control Strategies. In C. A. Okia (Ed.), Global Perspectives on Sustainable Forest Management. Retrieved from http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs-wm/36125.pdf
Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC).N.d. The North American Mosaic: An Overview of Key Environmental Issues. Retrieved from http://www3.cec.org/islandora/en/item/2349-north-american-mosaic-overview-key-environmental-issues-en.pdf
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (2005). Realizing the Economic Benefits of Agroforestry: Experiences, Lessons and Challenges. Retrieved from ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/007/y5574e/y5574e09.pdf
Goodland, Robert. (1995). The Concept of Environmental Sustainability. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 26, 1-24. Retrieved fromhttp://are.berkeley.edu/courses/ARE298/Readings/goodland.pdf
Mensah, A. M., & Castro, L. C. (2004). Sustainable Resource Use and Sustainable Development: A Contradiction? ZEF Center for Development Research Paper. Retrieved fromhttp://www.zef.de/fileadmin/downloads/forum/docprog/Termpapers/2004_3b_Mensah_Castro.pdf
Nabuurs, G.J., Masera, O., Andrasko, K., Benitez-Ponce, P., Boer, R., Dutschke, M., . . . Zhang, X. (2007). Forestry. In B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P. R. Bosch, R. Dave & L. A. Meyer (Eds.), Climate Change 2007: Mitigation (pp. 543-578). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter9.pdf
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2013). Agroforestry. Retrieved from http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=agroforestry
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2012). Carbon Sequestration through Reforestation: A Local Solution with Global Implications. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/aml/revital/cseqfact.pdf
