It has been pointed out in the preceding pages that forests exist in almost all the countries of the world; that they are the most complex achievement of ecological evolution; that the forest ecosystem is not only living, dynamic and self-regulating, but interacts with other factors of the environment in an almost infinite variety of ways; and that this ecosystem profoundly influences the world's environment at both global and local levels. It has also been stressed that in many parts of the world, the forests are being devastated and mismanaged, and that some of the processing industries which utilize the products of the forests may pollute the environment and adversely affect the quality of human life.
It must therefore be emphasized that those goods and services which forests and forest lands provide may be obtained without deterioration of the human environment. In addition, the wood raw material may be processed without the release of pollutants to the atmosphere, and to the rivers, lakes, and seas. Systems of forest management have been evolved which are designed not only to yield the wood products demanded by the world's inhabitants, but also to provide protection to the earth's surface, maintain the forests as places of recreation, and enable the forests to perform their air-conditioning role. Modifications may also be made to industrial processes, so that pollution may be eliminated.
Despite the importance of forests, it must be acknowledged that land is in demand from all sectors of the community, and that frequently economic development can proceed only by felling forests. Unfortunately, many forest clearing schemes are undertaken without a full understanding of the interdependence of vegetation, soil, and climate, and without a true appreciation of the, possibly, far-reaching effects of replacing one type of land-use with another. It is therefore essential that land capacity classifications be formulated and land-use plans drawn up, at least in areas where drastic changes in the land-use pattern are contemplated.
Land classification is the systematic arrangement into classes of different types of land according to their inherent capability to produce crops with or without additional inputs. The placing of an area of land into any particular group will depend on a combination of the factors which influence productivity, viz. climate, topographic relief, and soil characteristics. The object of land classification is to distinguish what exists, and forecast what would occur under various uses, conditions, and circumstances. Land classifications enable the planner to appreciate the differences in quality of the land at his disposal, to estimate the inputs needed to produce this or that crop, and the costs and benefits to the nation of particular types of land-use are adopted. 1
As Kneipp 2 has said, “the chief characteristic of civilized man is his ability to anticipate and plan for the future”. No element of man's cosmos more vitally affects his future than the land resources of the world.
There are many ways of classifying land, but certain basic factors must be taken into account: the inherent fertility of the soil, the climatic conditions (including temperature extremes, and the distribution and intensity of rainfall), angle of slope, length of slope, the infiltration capacity of the soil, and if possible known sediment yields. An assessment of these factors will enable the classifier to predict, with a reasonable degree of certainty, the effects of certain crops and cropping patterns not only on crop yields, but also on erosion and water supply regulation. Land classification is a long, painstaking process which necessitates the accumulation of vast amounts of data. For this reason, it is often avoided, and mistakes are discovered only through the harsh laws of empiricism.
Above all, it must be emphasized that it should not be assumed that the luxuriant appearance of forest vegetation necessarily indicates that the soils beneath the forest are capable of sustaining continuous agricultural cropping. As has been shown, the forest is a self-sustaining unit which is able to create favourable conditions for itself in environments which would be extremely severe for other types of crops. Only careful investigation, therefore, would reveal the inherent capabilities of land under forests.
In any case, it has been noted that in both developed and developing regions, disorders appear in lands which are marginal, either ecologically or as a result of their past use. This is the consequence of new technologies, population pressures or exodus and increasing needs. In developing countries, this is marked by the advance of desert and increasing erosion of mountain areas. It is expected that the process of stabilisation and development of marginal lands, which is already in operation in some countries, will be supported and developed by the governments concerned.
2 Kneipp, L.J. (1936) - Land Utilization and Planning. J. of Forestry. Vol. 34
If, as is possible, the exercise in land classification and land-use planning reveals that it would be in the social and economic interests of the nation that certain areas should be under forests, these forests will have to be managed.
Over the years, various systems of managing forests have evolved. These systems embody three ideas: (a) the method of regenerating the forest crop, (b) the form of the crop produced, and (c) the orderly arrangement of the forest with special reference to silvicultural and protective considerations, and to the economic utilization of the produce. 2
Most classical systems aim at an ideal, i.e. the creation of what is termed a normal forest. A normal forest contains a complete succession of age classes from the youngest to the oldest; these age classes are represented in correct proportion, density and distribution, so that as each reaches maturity, it may be felled in its turn and regenerated. The same volume or area can therefore be felled each year or period of years, in perpetuity. The volume felled is usually equal to the annual growth of the forest. This ideal is hardly ever obtained, except perhaps in certain industrial plantations (man-made forests).
The classical silvicultural systems of forest management range from clear-cutting systems in which successive areas are clear-felled and regenerated, most often by artificial but sometimes by natural means, to the selection system in which felling and regeneration are not confined to certain parts of the area but are distributed all over it, the fellings consisting of the removal of single trees or small groups of trees scattered throughout the forest.
Between these two extremes, there are several types of system. In all of them, however, the forester carefully considers the vegetation, the other factors of the environment, and the desired end-product. Then, through his knowledge of the relevant ecological relationships, he applies the management tool most suited to obtaining the necessary forest products, and at the same time conserving the forests and the soil beneath.
Very frequently, the species that are demanded by the wood conversion processes are not those which are found in the climax forests, but those that occur in one of the stages of the succession. An important aspect of the foresters' action is, therefore, sometimes to arrest the succession at a stage in which the forests would produce those goods that are needed by society, or to deflect the succession to such a stage, or to change part of or the entire composition of the forest. The forester may also establish plantations in areas not formerly occupied by forests, or reforest areas which have been cleared. In each case, the forester should apply his ecological knowledge in order to ensure that there are no adverse effects on the environment. In each case, he should foresee the consequences of his action and the chain reactions which would inevitably occur through his changes of the natural environment.
When man manages a forest, and particularly when he creates new forests, he introduces changes from natural conditions. However, there is very little substance in the argument that natural unmanaged forests are the ideal, and that drastic departures from natural forest conditions would lead to site and other environmental deterioration. Peace has stressed the danger of adopting the concept of the natural forest as a basis for silviculture, and has shown that both the physical growth of the forest vegetation and the protective effects of the forest may be increased through sound and vigorous scientific forest management. In short, what is required is not the preservation of forests as they occur in nature but the application of sound ecological principles so that forests may be reshaped and reconstituted to meet man's economic demands, without reducing their global and local influence on the environment.
Thus, during the last five decades or se, it has been recognized in many countries that artificial, man-made forests must in many cases be established to complement natural forests, and/or to replace them. The advantages of forest plantations are many and far-reaching. They utilize time and space more efficiently and yield raw material of comparatively uniform size and quality. They provide products that can be more or less custom-made to meet certain technological requirements; they are relatively simple to manage and, unlike natural forests, their location can be planned; and they are more responsive to the advances of science (e.g. fertilizer application and tree breeding) than are natural forests.
In order to make certain that the species to be established in forest plantations will survive in the new environment, will create conditions suitable for their continued existence, and will enhance and not degrade the localities in which they are established, a series of careful investigations is carried out. Several species are tried on a small scale and the failures progressively eliminated until finally those most suited to the site are selected. Only after these have been given further trials in larger plots are full-scale plantations embarked upon. Because of the long time-span between planting and maturity, some mistakes have inevitably been made. However, when the careful techniques of selection and evaluation which have been evolved are followed, the risk of mistakes is considerably reduced.
As far as logging and road building are concerned, it should be pointed out that they could have a pronounced positive effect. Logging may be carried out in order to keep the forest open and more attractive for recreation. Road building makes the forests much more accessible and thereby increases the service function of the forest. They also give better opportunity for management and fire control. 1
So far the discussion on forest management has been almost exclusively confined to production forestry. If a proper land classification has been made, and the correct silvicultural system followed, the dangers of erosion, soil compaction, siltation and flooding will be considerably reduced even when utilizing the forests and extracting the produce from them. Moreover, by carefully siting extraction routes, providing side and overhead shade for forest roads, and restricting peak extraction periods to the drier seasons, mechanical compaction by heavy machinery can be minimized.
As has been discussed, the use of forests for recreational purposes is rapidly increasing. Indeed, it has been suggested that in many developed countries such as Great Britain, the forester of the future must become a resort rather than a resource manager. 1 Although this is possibly an over-statement, there is little doubt that, certainly in the developed countries, and probably in the long run in the developing countries, certain forest areas will have to be set aside purely for recreational purposes.
It will probably be necessary in the developed countries to zone forests. The larger forest areas more remote from population centres could be managed primarily for wood production. With some compromises (such as leaving undisturbed the visible edges of the forests, regulating felling and extraction, and landscaping production plantations), they could also provide landscape and recreational benefits. However, at the other extreme, forests close to population centres will increasingly have to be managed for recreation.
Nevertheless, it should not be assumed that forests must be managed to meet single objectives only. The flexibility of forests, their dynamic nature, and the compatibility of some management objectives suggest that multiple-use management and the associated modifications of silvicultural practice are feasible in certain situations.
Multiple-use forest management may be defined as the conscious and deliberate use of forest land for the concurrent production of more than one good or service. In recent years, forest planners and managers have been paying much attention to multiple-use management because of the almost universal threat to forest areas, and because of the increasing demand for those recreational and protective services which the forests provide.
The concept of multiple use is attractive because it permits the realization of a multiplicity of goals. It should be emphasized, however, that it is often impossible to maximize the attainment of more than one objective from a forest unit. Management for a mixed set of objectives often results in the failure to attain perfection in any. This is not intended as a criticism. Often, in multiple-use management, although the benefits which might have accrued from single purpose management might be reduced, the benefits which the economy gains from the combined production is greater or at least equal to those obtainable under single-use management.
It is important also to decide on the dominant use in the combination. In order to do this properly, the forest manager must be aware of the possible combination, he must appreciate the interactions of the various types of use, and he must assess the demands of society for the goods and services that are to be produced. These analyses would place him in a position to decide whether single use or multiple use should be the policy for particular cases, and if the latter, to decide on the hierarchy of the various components of the multiple use mix.
The stages in the decision-making process are as follows:
assess the needs of the population for the product and services;
assess the ability of the available area or areas to supply those needs on a single-use basis;
if the available areas can meet the demand on a single-use basis, then practise single-use management;
if they cannot, multiple-use management is necessary and a decision must be made concerning the dominant use.
An effective multiple-use programme must, of course, be planned. Where the costs incurred in the production of the various goods and/or services can be ascertained, and where the revenue which may accrue from these goods and/or services can be assessed, then, by using a technique such as the indifference curve analysis, the optimum combinations may be determined. 1
Unfortunately, it is often difficult to assess the costs and benefits of the important services which the forests render, or at any rate it is difficult to convince the policy-makers of the validity of the benefits when they are expressed in quantitative terms.
It is relatively easy to estimate the costs of services to the community provided by the forests. For artificial forests, the costs are fairly readily calculable; for natural forests, the opportunity costs involved by not exploiting the forests, or by reducing production, or by using special silvicultural systems can be estimated.
The assessment of benefits is more difficult. However, if for example, it can be shown that by removing forests other areas would become subject to alternate periods of droughts and floods, the benefits might be calculated. Where recognizable and identifiable damage has occurred because of forest clearance, the cost of restoration may be used as indicative of the benefits of forest cover. But the post hoc character of this type of exercise reduces its methodological importance. In any event, the problem with regard to calculating the protective functions of forests lies not so much in the choice of methodology, but in obtaining the data to make the calculations.
The quantification of recreational benefits is even more difficult. It is not easy to ascribe monetary values to the psychological benefits of noise abatement, or to the mental distress which forests relieve when they are used for recreation. Again, a post hoc exercise may be applicable, but it would be difficult to prove that a person would not have become ill, or his productivity at work would be improved, if recreation in forests were prescribed from time to time.
If charges were levied for entry into forest areas, then, of course, the problem would be simplified. Even so, the benefits in real terms would probably be greater than the price paid for entry. Questionnaires have been suggested as a means of estimating the value citizens place on forest recreational areas. These have some merit and may perhaps be more widely employed in those countries in which Government Forest Services are forced to modify production forestry practices in order to provide recreational facilities.
Finally, Governments often require their Forest Services to show positive balance sheets. This is a perfectly reasonable requirement when production forestry is practised, for production forestry is a business. However, these Governments almost always insist, where the demand for recreational services is high and vociferous or where protective services are obviously needed, that the forests provide these multiple services. In attempting to meet these objectives, Government Forest Services restrict their felling areas, and adopt silvicultural practices that are compatible with recreation and protection. Not surprisingly, revenue drops and the Forest Services are blamed. It is therefore important that a logical method of financing and accounting be evolved for this type of forestry.
(a) Governments should formulate or revise existing national forest policies and plans so as to take into account the rapidly increasing demands for the social services which forests provide. Any institutional changes which are necessary to implement these policies should be made. In particular, adequate legislation should be enacted, an efficient law enforcement cadre provided, and the forest administrative machinery re-organized and strengthened. Accounting procedures should be revised so that the costs and benefits of social forestry are reflected in Government forestry budgets. Special attention should be paid to education and training of professional foresters and technicians in all relevant aspects of environmental control; where necessary refresher courses should be provided. Attempts should be made to develop in the public a consciousness of the influence of forests on the human environment.
(b) Governments are also advised to establish planning authorities at national and/or provincial, state or local level. The main functions of these authorities would be to assess environmental values and to evaluate specific development projects by making impact surveys in advance of project implementation. These surveys would identify all the environmental components which may possibly be affected by the project, determine the effect of proposed development on each component; and recommend the appropriate measures to guarantee that environmental changes wrought by the project are held with reasonable limits.
(c) It is also recommended that urban planning commissions seek the advice of environmental foresters in establishing tree gardens and plantations to improve the appearance of the urban landscape and reduce noise pollution.
(d) Governments are also advised to establish or strengthen research organizations which would investigate the function and productivity of both natural and man-made forest ecosystems. Individual research organizations should collaborate closely with each other, and with International Agencies such as UNESCO (the “Man and Biosphere” programme) and FAO.
1 Compare, however, the Section “Forestry Development”.
1 Richardson S.D. (1970). The end of forestry in Great Britain. Advancement of Science, 27.
1 See Gregory, E.R. (1955) - An economic framework to multiple use. For.Sc. Vol. (1) No. 11
As mentioned in an earlier part of this paper, there are no technical problems in reducing or eliminating pollution created by the forest industries. While as a rule pollution control is an economic problem, there are cases where even economics call for elimination of pollution. For example, sawdust and wood waste are often used as fuel for the production of steam and power and when they are thus burnt under proper control in a boiler they become valuable fuel and the pollution created by the burning can be substantially reduced. The increase in cost of wood has resulted in the increased use of wood waste and sawdust, and even bark, for other products such as pulp and panels. Indeed, there are hardly any mechanical woodworking operations of industrial size in the developed world where the wood waste is not completely used by other forest industries. This does not necessarily apply to the decreasing number of very small sawmills, which may still have a problem of utilizing if not solid wood waste at least sawdust. However, it should be remembered that many of these operations are in rural areas where sawdust is still a valuable material for various purposes.
As mentioned earlier, the problem of water pollution has been with the pulp and paper industries for as long as they have existed. In the beginning solutions were evolved because of economic factors, for example the chemicals and organic matter in the waste liquid from the pulp mill were found to be valuable for re-use and burning. The last two decades have seen a tremendous increase in the expenditure and efforts by the pulp and paper industry in reducing or eliminating pollution. Investments in air and water pollution control facilities have increased in recent years some five times faster than the production of pulp and paper, and it may have now reached a level of hundreds of millions of dollars per year. The industry has now clearly passed the point where the additional cost of controlling or eliminating pollution is an economic incentive. Nevertheless, the industry complies with the pressure brought on it by the need to maintain the quality of the environment. So much so that one of the most important factors presently affecting the selection of process, type and location of a new pulp and paper mill is its possible influence on the environment. In most parts of the world no new mills can be built without an authorization from the government, which normally has special bodies to scrutinize in great detail the plans related to pollution control. The industry itself is aware and concerned with the problems of pollution and is often supporting intensive research programmes to develop increasingly effective and economic ways of pollution control or elimination.
(a) It is recommended that governments should, if they have not already done so, establish limits for air and water pollution. In this connection, governments might consider the classification of a country, or regions of a country, into well-defined zones. The limits of pollution could then very from zone to zone depending upon the degree of urbanization, the density of population, climate, topography, type of effluent recipient, etc.
(b) Governments are also advised to control, through legislation, the discharge of gases, effluent or solids from forest industrial installations. Such legislation should, inter alia, prescribe maximum levels of emission for various processes, limit the allowable particulate matter discharged, and provide for the monitoring of emissions.
(c) It is also recommended that Governments should establish enforcement agencies which themselves would monitor the discharge of pollutants into the environment and ensure that established regulations are followed.
(d) It is suggested that Governments consider the granting of incentives to forest industry enterprises not only to encourage them to install anti-pollution equipment, but also to assist in the promotion of research into waste disposal and general pollution reduction.
(e) In cases where adequate information about forest industrial pollution research is not readily obtainable, and where the industry is not taking the measures required, governments should themselves establish research centres which should evaluate the relative tolerance factors in urban and in rural areas to various types of air, water and land pollutants, and should prepare relevant environmental quality guides.
