|
Emergent Issues Require
Global Analysis
George M. Woodwell
A
world in which the human population is doubling in 30-40
years and human aspirations for material goods and wealth
are virtually insatiable is a new world, changing more
rapidly than most can imagine. There are many changes, but
among the most important is a series of transitions in the
flora and fauna globally. On land, the most important
biotic changes are those involving forests. The changes are
those involving forests. The changes have become large
enough to effect the earth as a whole and to be considered
as a series of emergent global issues. They are emergent in
that they have not existed previously and have pushed
themselves onto the stage of human endeavour only recently.
They must be recognised as vital for the human future that
will grow systematically in importance.
The background to these issues will be
provided by the scientific community, but only as a result
of specific requests. Political action, too, will require
innovation born of the obvious need to correct threatening
and rapidly moving trends. To address both, further
innovation is now seen as appropriate: an Independent World
Commission on Forests and Sustainable Development. The
Commission will face several immediate challenges.
Firstly, human activities are producing
progressive biotic impoverishment of land and water
globally. On land, forests constitute one of the major
reservoirs of plant and animal diversity. It is the
destruction of forests in every latitude, not simply in the
tropics, that is leading to the depletion of terrestrial
ecosystems. The problem is especially acute in the tropics
because of the extraordinarily high number of species that
occurs there. In many places the destruction of forests is
irreversible: the land becomes impoverished to the point
where it no longer supports the living systems that it was
once capable of supporting. This loss constitutes a loss of
potential in the support of life, including people. The
transition is far more common than is usually recognised
because the impoverished land has little economic value and
is abandoned. The management of forests is the issue.
At the same time, there is a fundamental
question about how the world works and the role that forests
play in keeping it working as a physical, chemical and
biotic system capable of supporting people. The world is
obviously in trouble as a result of the current intensity of
human activities. Two changes are particularly threatening,
although they are not the only threats to the human future.
The changes in the composition of the atmosphere through the
accumulation of heat-trapping gasses are warming the earth
and will continue to warm the earth into the indefinite
future. Other factors such as volcanic explosions may
affect the temperature of the earth, but the earth will be
warmer because of the additions of heat-trapping gasses than
it would be otherwise. The destruction of forests is a
major contributor to the additional carbon dioxide
accumulating in the atmosphere. The restoration of forests,
conversely, can be expected to remove carbondioxide from the
atmosphere. There is no possibility of stabilizing the
heat-trapping gas content of the atmosphere without a
programme that includes the management of forests.
Forests also a play a very important role in
stabilizing the landscape, which includes maintaining the
quality and magnitude of water flows, the stability of
soils, the purity of rivers and lakes and bays, and the
quality of air locally. The destruction of forests over
large regions is affecting all of these various attributes
of the human environment, and these changes, cumulatively,
are reducing the habitability of the earth. The changes
extend to influences on the earth’s energy budget, locally,
regionally and globally. The problems have been recognised
great issues of human affairs. They have the potential for
making life on earth much more difficult, for driving
regions into biotic and economic impoverishment, for
rendering human populations unstable and the future
uncertain, for engendering political unrest and becoming the
basis of war.
The management of forests globally has been
heavily in the hands of private interests feeding commerce.
The emergence of the public interests mentioned above makes
clear that current reliance on private interests in the
management of forests is not protecting public interests
locally or globally. Now that the threats have expanded to
global threats they constitute an emergent series of crises
that will require far broader common understanding and
common action to control them. Solutions will require a
clear recognition of the public interests, their definition,
measurement, and appraisal to establish their importance in
order to initiate effective action. The issues are
scientific, they are also economic and political. But the
scientific and technical issues have been largely neglected
and require intensive attention now.
The Commission can be expected, early in its
life, to seek advice from scientific agencies around the
world as to how it may proceed most effectively in defining
the common human interest in stable habitat, capable of
supporting large numbers of people into the indefinite
future. The key role of forests in determining details of
this habitat is only now being defined, but will be defined
far more clearly and emphatically by the activities
stimulated by the Commission. Forests are a finite resource
globally. We are close to reaching the end of global
resources of primary forests and must look towards secondary
forests not only as our future source of fibre and all of
the ancillary environmental advantages that forests provide,
but also for the stabilisation of the human habitat.
There is no question but that the management
of forests is, and will continue to be, local. But the sum
of local management practices must add to a world that works
in the support of all the worlds people. The world at the
moment is not working. Substantial redefinition of the
problem is required. That will come from the scientific
community. Substantial innovation in the management of
essential resources is also required. That will come from
the political community. There is much room for innovation
in the management of resources. Much of that innovation
will involve changes in economic relationships, the
establishment of new economic gradients that will make it
attractive to preserve forests. The Commission is being
established to provide an opportunity for the complicated
discussions that must ensue, for the accumulation of new
data and insights on the role of forests in the world, and
for the innovations that must occur in government and in
economics to keep the world working properly.
q
|
National
Sovereignty vs. Globalisation |
|
The government of India has adopted a
‘wait and watch’ approach to the Commission.
Significantly, it was on the invitation of Mr. Kamal
Nath, the Minister of Environment and Forests that the
Organizing Committee of the Commission held its third
and final meeting in New Delhi.
In a conversation with Development
Alternatives, Narayan Singh, Additional Inspector
General of Forests, appeared lukewarm about the
Commission, but as the arguments in its favour were
pressed home, he reluctantly conceded that such a body
may prove beneficial.
The knee jerk reaction of the
government is as follows: India objects to the
globalisation of forests, nations have rights over
them, as do the communities which reside within and
around them. When reminded that forests have an
impact which spreads beyond national boundaries, a
fact that all countries have accepted the reaction is:
“That may be true, as it is with regard to other
national resources which also affect global trade and
the environment, but so what”, Mr. Singh asks.
He switches to another tack. India is,
we are told, conscious of the importance of forests.
The National Forest Policy, which was written under
the supervision of Mr. Singh, advises on the steps
that need to be taken. “We have the perceptions of
how to deal with the problem. A Commission is not
required to tell us what we should do”, he emphasises.
Mr. Singh explains that the issues that
have emerged from Rio, are being addressed by the
government. A cabinet paper has been prepared and
meetings are held periodically on how best to
implement the Conventions, and “Principles” (on
forests), that were signed during the Earth Summit.
Advice is proffered to the Commission.
“If a body has to be set up, it should address itself
to tackling rural poverty which is the root cause of
environmental degradation” says Mr. Singh. The
example of Sub-Sahelean region in Africa is cited
where the land is totally degraded, the consequence of
which is recurrent famines. The suggestion is made
that the Commission could do no better than to try and
change government policies of this region. India does
not need advice: its policies are enlightened.
For Mr. Singh’s benefit it is
reiterated that the Commission will not presume to
tell India what it should do; that it has no intention
of interfering in the national policies on forests of
any government.
Accepting these observations, Mr. Singh
has a dig at the Commission. He avers that when it
was pointed out to its worthy members that FAO, UNEP
and the newly constituted Commission on Sustainable
Development were already given the responsibility to
make recommendations on forests, they said that they
would work in “close collaboration” with these
organisations. Thus the Commission has already
changed its strategy on the government’s advice.
It is no use pointing out that these
bodied (except CSD) have had a sectoral approach to
forests, whereas the Commission favours a holistic
one; and in any case all along it intend to work in
tandem with the UN organisations which have a body of
expertise.
Suddenly there is yet another change in
approach: “We need think tanks, pressure groups that
can bring forests to the fore of the consciousness of
policymakers”, says Mr. Singh. As a forester he has
always felt that in India they have not been given the
attention they deserve, receiving no more than one
percent of total plan allocations whereas something
like five percent is required. He complains that the
government cannot spare more funds for forests since
it has several other priorities. India has turned to
the World Bank, other donor agencies, as well as UNEP
for its facilities (data bank, resource
persons/specialists) to develop its forests. Perhaps
the Commission can help in these matters, says Mrs.
Singh.
There we have it. The government can
make do with Commission after all.
q |
Back to Contents |