Analysis of Energy Sufficiency, Sustainability and Conflicts of US Forests
Abstract
The focus of the paper is to analyze the economics of US forests. In particular, the paper analyses the energy sufficiency, sustainability, as well as potential conflicts regarding this essential us natural resource. Concerning forest sustainability, the paper will consider issues such as how the US can use and retain forests to meet different human needs, how it can preserve and promote healthy forests, and how the country can make ethical choices concerning forests. Key findings in the paper reveal that although the United States has shown some efforts in creating sustainability concerning forests, there is still much that needs to be done to increase sustainability and energy potential concerning forests. Some government policies, such as government settlements have had negative impacts on forests and as a result, there is a need to rethink on these policies. All these issues have been brought out clearly in the paper.
Analysis of Energy Sufficiency, Sustainability and Conflicts of US Forests
Forests are the most dominant terrestrial ecosystems on the earth’s surface. The resource is also distributed across the world. Forests account for approximately 75 % of the total primary productivity of the earth’s biosphere. Additionally, it contains almost 80% of the total earth’s plant biomass (McNulty& Aber, 2001). Forests in different latitudes tend to form different eco-zones that are distinct from each other. For instance, boreal forests located near the poles of the earth tend to be made up of evergreen trees while the tropical forests which grow near the equator tend to be quite distinct from the temperate forests found at mid-latitude. The forest composition is also affected significantly by the elevation as well as by the amount of precipitation of the forest.
Forests and human society influence each other in different ways. Both positive and negative. For instance, forests provide humanity with ecosystem services in addition to serving as tourist attractions (McCool & Stankey, 2004). Ideally, forests accord both economic and social benefits to human society. However, forests also impose significant costs, interfere with human enjoyment, and affect the health of human beings. Some human activities like forest harvesting can negatively affect the forest ecosystems. Striking a balance between the use and preservation of forests is crucial in enhancing forest energy efficiency and sustainability.
Organization of the Paper
Literature Review
There are almost 154 protected areas in the United States that are regarded as natural forests. The areas represent approximately 762, 169 square kilometers (McCool & Stankey, 2004). In the country, the natural forests are managed by the United States Forest Service (USFS), which is an agency of the US Department of Agriculture. The national forest system has undergone major reorganizations over the years. All these reorganizations have been geared towards creating sustainable forest management which is key in realizing optimal economic benefits from forests.
Sustainable forest management (SFM) is defined as the management of forests following the major principles of sustainable development in a country. According to McNulty& Aber (2001), sustainable forest management should strike a balance between three major pillars; social-cultural, economic and ecological. Ecological goals in sustainable forests management are aimed at ensuring that the country maintains biodiversity. Biodiversity is very important in forest management. Naturally, many forests have diverse species and which ought to be maintained and even improved by the forest management agencies. Concerning social cultural goals of sustainable forest management, the aim is to maximize the social benefits obtained from the plants. The principle of maximum social benefit is very instrumental in this particular area. The economic aspect of suitable forest management focuses on creating the maximum economical benefits from the forest (McNulty& Aber, 2001). Forests in the United States present a lot of economic benefits and which can be tapped for the economic wellbeing of the country. For instance, one of the major products of forests is timber, which is a vital economic resource. Gibson, Williams & Ostrom (2005) claim that attaining successful sustainable forest management in the United States will provide integrated benefits to all, which range from safeguarding the local society members to protecting ecosystems and biodiversity provided by these forests. Additionally, sustainable forest management is also instrumental in reducing rural poverty as well as mitigating some of the negative effects caused by climatic change.
There appears to be a growing international consensus concerning the key elements that make up sustainable forest management. The most thematic areas applied in attaining sustainable forests in the United States are based on the criteria and indicators of sustainable management. Criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management are tools used to evaluate, implement, and conceptualize sustainability in forests management (Stork et al., 1997). The criteria characterize and define the essential elements, processes or conditions by which an assessment of sustainable forest management can be undertaken. Indicators that are measured periodically indicate the direction of change concerning each of these criteria. The major elements of sustainable forest management include biological diversity, social-economic function, forest vitality and health, productive functions, protective function of the forest resources as well as the legal, institutional and policy framework.
Forest governance is key in realizing optimal economic benefit for this natural resource in the United States. Putting in place strategic governance measures concerning forest governance can greatly enhance sustainability and energy efficiency of these forests. The effectiveness of forest governance has increasingly depended on formal ownership. McCool & Stankey (2004) state that although most of the forests have continued to be owned by the federal government, there has been adequate evidence that the state has failed to effectively manage this natural resource. It can be attributed greatly to the use of neo-liberal regimes, which have been key in creating demand and supply forces in the market. The rise of free market economy can also be attributed to the failure in government’s management of forests (Ryan at al., 2010). Market forces have constantly taken over the social-economic role of the government. To realize optimal economic benefits from forests, there is a need to shift the responsibilities of management of this natural resource from the federal to the local as well as state governments. It can be undertaken under the decentralization process. Ideally, decentralization process may take privatization, delegation, devolution, and deconcentrating (Kellert et al., 2000). Privatization entails the transfer of forest management responsibilities from the government agencies to non-governmental agencies. Delegation involves placing the management responsibilities on nominated local authority. Devolution entails the transfer of responsibilities and power concerning management of forests to the locally acceptable authority. On the other and, deconcentrating is the redistribution of authority and responsibilities from the central government to the field delegations of the centrally run government.
The United States has incurred both environmental and economic costs concerning alien invasive species. According to Pimentel, Zuniga and Morrison (2005), most of these plants were introduced into the United States for fiber, ornamental purposes or food. A significant number of these species now exists in the United States natural ecosystems.
Forests provide a lot of economic and social benefits to the human society. These benefits include contributions made to the overall economy for instance through employment and processing as well as the trade of the forests products and the associated energy. Usually, the economic benefits of forests are measured in monetary terms. McNulty& Aber (2001) claim that the measures many include employment for the forest sector, the value of goods and services produced from the forests, energy supplies, and contribution of the forests to the international trade. The level of investment, as well as profitability of the forest enterprises in the US, can be used to assess the economic sustainability and sustainability of the forests. The social benefits of forests include providing hosting as well as protecting landscapes and sites of high spiritual, recreational and cultural value to the society. However, the social benefits derived from forests are more difficult to measure. Additionally, these benefits can vary significantly among countries depending on the county’s level of traditions and developments. For instance, in developed countries such as the United States, recreational benefits may be most important as compared to underdeveloped nations which might use forests as a show of their social value.
The world is undergoing significant changes in climate, culture and ecology (Canadell & Raupach, 2008). The condition even presents more challenges to human beings because changes which occur in one area are most likely to have far-reaching consequences in other regions. According to McGuire et al. (2008), this situation can be attributed to biological connections and human linkages. Creating strategies for optimal sustainability of forests and other natural resources is, therefore, vital.
Methods of Logic
The study adopted an explanatory non-experimental research design. Additionally, the research utilizes the deductive method of reasoning. In logic, deductive reasoning works from the more general information to more specific. The method of logic is sometimes referred to as top-down. In this paper, the knowledge narrows down from the most general form of natural resources at large to more specific issues concerning forests in the United States.
Analysis of results
The research reveals that forests, as well as diversity, are critical to human life. Particularly, diversity allows a community to have an opportunity for economic development, adaptive responses to new climatic challenges, and medical discoveries. The importance of forests in the economy cannot be underestimated (Canadell & Raupach, 2008). The woods harvested from these forests are a major economic boost to the United States as well as other countries all over the world. The combined value of the woods harvested serves as an indicator of the major contribution of forests to national economies. Information regarding wood harvested from the forests is used to monitor as well as developing national policies, allocating resources, and setting priorities (Kellert et al., 2000). Sound allocation of resources is a critical factor of any economic system in the world. As at 2005, the total value of wood harvested globally was approximate $57 billion, which was attributed to industrial round wood. Additionally, the world also recorded approximately $7 billion for the fuel wood produced (Canadell & Raupach, 2008). Such figures indicate the economic significance of forests in the world. Timber is both a capital good and output from United States forests.
Averagely, the reported value of wood seems to have increased significantly in the United States. It has also been the case in many other regions of the globe except in South America and Asia. It is worth noting that wood- products are not the only products extracted from timber (Canadell & Raupach, 2008). For instance, non-wood forest products are very significant in reducing poverty since such products such as fodder and food as collected in rural areas by people who are relatively poor. However, information concerning the non-wood forest products is very scanty. It can be attributed to the fact that most of these products do not enter the market as they are utilized locally by the community. In 2005, the value of non-wood forest products was approximated to being $ 4.7 billion (Canadell & Raupach, 2008). Important decisions surrounding the harvest of Timber from forests is influenced by major economic considerations. For instance, the optimal time for harvesting timber from a forest may utilize profit maximization perspective. It seeks to maximize the present value of the benefits received from the wood (Houghton, 2003). At the same time, it should also seek to minimize the costs associated with the process that in turn will maximize the net benefits from the wood produced from US forests.
The economic significance of forests in the United States can also be exemplified by the large number of people employed in forestry (Canadell & Raupach, 2008). The level of employment of citizens in the forest sector indicates the social-economic value of forests in the country. It also serves as an indicator of the impact of the sector on people’s social life. For instance, in 2000, approximately 11 million people were employed in the sector.
Formulating effective policies concerning sustainable forest management need a proper understanding of forest ownership issues. Ownership of forests has significantly shifted from the state to individual households and local communities (Stork et al., 1997). Such changes have had a significant effect on the way forests are managed. Additionally, the ownership issues concerning forests have significant economic, social, and political implications. Ideally, the United Sates has not been very receptive of major privatization policies adopted by some countries in the world. In absolute terms, the Northern America, Europe and Asia represent the largest areas where forests have been privatized.
Over the past few decades, the problem of deforestation has been witnessed in the United Sates as well as in other parts of the world. Deforestation may have serious consequences on the social life of human beings as well as on the economy of the United States. For instance, deforestation leads to climatic change and increased global warning which in turn affect agricultural activities adversely (Houghton, 2003). At the same time, once forest are destroyed, people working in forestry stand to lose their jobs and which has a negative impact on the economy. Socially, the heritage of societies will be lost if major forests are destroyed. For instance, the Amazon forest in the US presents a major heritage for the people of the United States. The United States can offset approximately 20 to 40 percent of the carbon dioxide emissions if it draws a comprehensive plan to improve forest management policies.
Conflicts with existing literature
Most literature tend to overemphasize the monetary value of forests. Although it is informed to appreciate that the monetary value of forests and its products is key to evaluating the economic value of forests, there are other key non-monetary issues associated with forests that are very vital in shaping the economy. For instance, the social -economic parts are in most cases non-monetary and hence valuing them might be a major challenge. Despite this fact, underestimating the non-monetary value of forests is not ideal.
Strengths, Weaknesses and Limitations
Strengths
The major strength of the economic significance of forests in the United Sates is that there is readily available data, especially concerning wood value generated by the country. Therefore, it becomes easy to compare the costs to the benefits, which is key in revealing major economic imbalances (Chapin et al., 2008). Additionally, availability of data concerning other countries makes comparison easy. US government policies covering forest management can also be compared with other major international policies with ease.
Weaknesses
The United States has not been swift in embracing policies geared towards improving the sustainability and energy efficiency of its forests (Nelson & Kennedy, 2009). Particularly, it has not embraced ownership strategies, such as privatization, which are very instrumental in creating a sustainable forest management, which is key in enhancing economic benefits of forests.
Limitations
The major limitation in analyzing the economic sustainability and energy efficiency of US forests is the inability to value non-wood benefits (Nelson & Kennedy, 2009). The social benefits obtained from the forests are also difficulty to value. However, these products are very significant and as a result, they have major impacts on the economy.
Conclusion and recommendations
Natural resources are components or features of the natural environment and which are of value in serving human wants and needs. Most of the natural resources have major economic value to the society. Particularly, forests have vital economic importance in the world. In the United States, forests have been used as a source of food and timber. There is a lot of economic value attached to these products. Apart from the economic significance, forests also provide major social-economic benefits to the society. For instance, forests are key to maintaining biodiversity and climatic balance. When harvesting forests, major economic decisions need to be considered. The present value of net benefits from wood should be more than the associated costs.
The major limitation of this research is that data on the non-monetary benefits of woods was not readily available. It can be attributed to the fact that most of the non-monetary benefits of wood such as scenery are not valued. Additionally, other non-monetary benefits ado not reaches the market as the local communities consume them. As a result, further research should focus on the non-monetary benefits of US forests.
References
Canadell, J.G. and Raupach, M.R., 2008. Managing forests for climate change mitigation. Science, 320(5882), pp.1456-1457.
Chapin, F.S., Trainor, S.F., Huntington, O., Lovecraft, A.L., Zavaleta, E., Natcher, D.C., McGuire, A.D., Nelson, J.L., Ray, L., Calef, M. and Fresco, N., 2008. Increasing wildfire in Alaska's boreal forest: pathways to potential solutions of a wicked problem. BioScience, 58(6), pp.531-540.
Gibson, C.C., Williams, J.T. and Ostrom, E., 2005. Local enforcement and better forests. World Development, 33(2), pp.273-284.
Houghton, R.A., 2003. Revised estimates of the annual net flux of carbon to the atmosphere from changes in land use and land management 1850–2000. Tellus B, 55(2), pp.378-390.
Kellert, S.R., Mehta, J.N., Ebbin, S.A. and Lichtenfeld, L.L., 2000. Community natural resource management: promise, rhetoric, and reality. Society & Natural Resources, 13(8), pp.705-715.
McCool, S.F. and Stankey, G.H., 2004. Indicators of sustainability: challenges and opportunities at the interface of science and policy. Environmental management, 33(3), pp.294-305.
McNulty, S.G. and Aber, J.D., 2001. US national climate change assessment on forest ecosystems: an introduction. BioScience, 51(9), pp.720-722.
Nelson, J.P. and Kennedy, P.E., 2009. The use (and abuse) of meta-analysis in environmental and natural resource economics: an assessment. Environmental and resource economics, 42(3), pp.345-377.
Pimentel, D., Zuniga, R. and Morrison, D., 2005. Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecological economics, 52(3), pp.273-288.
Ryan, M.G., Harmon, M.E., Birdsey, R.A., Giardina, C.P., Heath, L.S., Houghton, R.A., Jackson, R.B., McKinley, D.C., Morrison, J.F., Murray, B.C. and Pataki, D.E., 2010. A synthesis of the science on forests and carbon for US forests.
Stork, N.E., Boyle, T.J.B., Dale, V., Eeley, H., Finegan, B., Lawes, M., Manokaran, N., Prabhu, R. and Soberon, J., 1997. Criteria and indicators for assessing the sustainability of forest management: conservation of biodiversity (No. CIFOR Working Paper no. 17, p. 29p).
